Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
- Neil Boister, The (UN-) Systematic Nature of the UN Criminal Justice System: The (NON) Relationship Between the Draft Illicit Tobacco Trade Protocol and the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime
- Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko, The Role of Victims in Criminal Proceedings – Lessons National Jurisdictions can learn from the ICC
- Robert L. Manson, Identifying the Rough Edges of the Kampala Compromise
- Michael G. Karnavas, Joint Criminal Enterprise at the ECCC: A Critical Analysis of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision Against the Application of JCE III and two Divergent Commentaries on the Same
- Michael Bohlander, Death of an Appellant – the Termination of the Appellate Proceedings in the Case of RASIM Delic at the ICTY
- Roger S. Clark, The Attrition of Capital Punishment Worldwide as the American Law Institute Withdraws its Model Penal Code Provision Recommending how to do it
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Sentences handed down at the ICTY have generally been lower than sentences handed down by the ICTR or by many domestic penal systems punishing individuals for domestic crimes. In this contribution to an OUP volume assessing the legacy of the ICTY, I argue that this disparity stems from a conflict between two different ideas of proportionality: defendant-relative proportionality and offence gravity proportionality. Although bearing some similarity to the categories first used by A.V. Hirsch, the categories are used to different effect in this Essay. Defendant-relative proportionality insists that defendants with a greater degree of culpability should receive longer sentences compared with defendants with lower culpability, while offence gravity proportionality insists that each defendant should receive punishment that accords with the gravity of the offence. These two senses of proportionality come into conflict at the ICTY when the only way to preserve defendant-relative proportionality is to scale down the punishment of those who are less culpable – a result which inevitably conflicts with offence gravity proportionality. The ICTY sentencing jurisprudence has fallen victim to this dilemma. This Essay makes a novel contribution to the international sentencing literature by explicitly defending the normative claim that offence gravity proportionality is primary and that a tribunal faced with sacrificing one proportionality over the other ought to satisfy the demands of offence gravity proportionality, even at the expense of defendant-relative proportionality. The warrant for this conclusion is that the harsh treatment associated with offence gravity proportionality vindicates the Rule of Law by providing a hypothetical war criminal with a maxim for action (in the Kantian sense) that makes compliance with the law rationally required. This vindication can only be accomplished by associating certain criminal maxims with punishments that adequately reflect the moral gravity of the offence. Comparisons between defendants are irrelevant for this purpose. Judges at the ICTY should therefore stop scaling down the sentences of lower- and medium-rung offenders in a misguided attempt to preserve room at the top of the scale for the worst offenders.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
- Michael Kagan, Refugee Credibility Assessment and the "Religious Imposter" Problem: A Case Study of Eritrean Pentecostal Claims in Egypt
- Do Thanh Cong, Catfish, Shrimp, and the WTO: Vietnam Loses Its Innocence
- Paul Enríquez, Deconstructing Transnationalism: Conceptualizing Metanationalism as a Putative Model of Evolving Jurisprudence
- Robert C. Blitt, One New President, One New Patriarch, and a Generous Disregard for the Constitution: A Recipe for the Continuing Decline of Secular Russia
Friday, December 17, 2010
- Luis Moreno-Ocampo, The International Criminal Court: a reflection
- Adam Roberts, The civilian in modern war
- Ryan Goodman, Controlling the recourse to war by modifying jus in bello
- Dale Stephens, Blurring the lines: the interpretation, discourse and application of the Law of Armed Conflict
- Brian J. Bill, The Redulic ‘Rule’: military necessity, commander’s knowledge, and methods of warfare
- Louise Arimatsu, Territory, boundaries and the Law of Armed Conflict
Modern critical legal thinking is pivoted on the critique of universalism. The critique of international law’s universalism has been done through theoretical workouts. Consequently, the new international legal scholarship is able to accommodate novel movements and intellectuals. TWAIL is such a movement. It has focused on capturing the relation between international law and the production of disadvantage for the subalterns of diverse geographies. However, self-satisfaction of legal scholars aside, is social-science-type discourse seeding the various parts – economic, human rights and humanitarian law – of positive international law? After all, how many judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ), among other international courts, have ever mentioned “thinkers”? Given that all these international institutions operate with a treaty based constitutional mandate, lawyers have begun to think international law in constitutional terms. I will use Chimni’s scholarship to introduce the idea of TWAIL and Žižek’s “suspension of the law” to evaluate TWAIL’s criticality.
The Hertie School of Governance, Berlin: A European Professional School for Public Policy
is recruiting a
Professor of Law and Governance in Europe (m/f)
The Hertie School of Governance is an international teaching and research centre of excellence that prepares students for leadership positions in government, business, and civil society. An internationally-recruited faculty, interdisciplinary in outlook, research, and teaching, offers analytically-challenging and practice-oriented courses on governance, policy analysis, management, and leadership and helps students grow intellectually in a professional, research-intensive environment, characterised by public debate and engagement.
Applicants should hold a PhD in law or a related discipline and have their focus of research on the legal structures of governance and regulation in Europe, preferably with a distinct profile in the law of the European Union. Their work should reflect interdisciplinary openness and excellence in research on an international level. Applicants should be willing to teach law and governance and European Union law in the Master of Public Policy and Executive Master of Public Management programmes and contribute to the PhD programme. We will consider junior candidates if they are exceptionally qualified and show high academic potential. The position is to be filled by September 2011.
Relative to rank, applicants should have:
- an international profile
- published extensively in top journals
- a proven record in teaching
As a professional school, the Hertie School seeks faculty with a commitment to intensive, high-quality teaching. All applicants are expected to be professionally fluent in English, the teaching language of the Hertie School. The Hertie School is prepared to reward excellence with competitive salaries and attractive conditions of work. The level of the position will be in line with the candidate's qualifications.
Review of applications will begin no later than 31 January 2011. Application procedure: The Hertie School will review applications that include all of the following documents:
- A letter of motivation
- A current Curriculum Vitae, including detailed personal and professional data and data on teaching experience
- A current publication list
- Names and contact details of up to three reference persons
Please send your application to firstname.lastname@example.org. For information about the Hertie School visit www.hertie-school.org. If you have questions about the position, please contact Prof. Nico Krisch. Strict confidentiality in the application process is assured. The Hertie School is an equal opportunity employer.
- Edward C. Luck, The Responsibility to Protect: Growing Pains or Early Promise?
- Robyn Eckersley, The Politics of Carbon Leakage and the Fairness of Border Measures
- Meri Koivusalo, Common Health Policy Interests and the Shaping of Global Pharmaceutical Policies
- Jennifer M. Welsh, Implementing the “Responsibility to Protect”: Where Expectations Meet Reality
Why should a Spanish court take jurisdiction over an American lawyer accused of facilitating torture on Guantanamo Bay? What empowers a London magistrate to sign an arrest warrant for a former Chilean President? Can it be legitimate or morally defensible for an Israeli court to try a former Nazi whose crimes occurred outside Israel and indeed prior to the establishment of Israel?
This book provides the first full account, explanation, and critique of extraterritorial punishment in international law. Extraterritoriality is deeply entrenched in the practice of legal punishment in domestic legal systems and, in certain circumstances, an established principle of public international law. Often, States claim the right to punish certain offences provided for under their own domestic laws even when they are committed outside their territorial boundaries. Furthermore, extraterritoriality is one of the most remarkable features of international criminal law. Many individuals have been prosecuted in different parts of the world for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, etc. before tribunals which are often located outside the territorial boundaries of the state in which the offences were perpetrated. Finally, the issue of extraterritorial punishment is of pressing importance because of the emergence of new forms of globalized crime, such as transnational terrorism, drug-trafficking, trafficking of human beings, and so on.
This book provides a convincing normative account of extraterritorial punishment. In doing so, it will steer current debates on international criminal justice and the philosophy of punishment in new directions, and link these debates to globalization, the emergence of transnational crime, terrorism, war, and the problem of impunity and mass atrocity.
The onset of the current process of globalization has brought about momentous changes to the rules and processes of international law. This comprehensive book examines a number of these changes, including the radical expansion of international economic law, the increase in the power of international economic organizations, and the new informal approaches to law-making. The greater reliance on judicial and arbitral mechanisms, and the proliferation of international human rights instruments, many of which have a direct bearing on international economic relations, are also discussed. The contributors to this book are all prominent experts in the fields of international law and international political economy, drawn from both developing and developed countries.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
- Didem Kayali, Enforceability of Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses
- Paul Michael Blyschak, Arbitrating Overseas Oil and Gas Disputes: Breaches of Contract Versus Breaches of Treaty
- Alexandra Johnson & Isabelle Wildhaber, Arbitrating Labor Disputes in Switzerland
- Sarosh Zaiwalla, LCIA India: Will It Change the International Arbitration Scene in India?
- Detlev Kühner, The Revised IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration
- David Wilson, The Resurgence of Scotland as a Force in International Arbitration: The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010
This book chapter expands upon the themes in "The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law", furnishing additional illustrations and methods of reasoning that engender internal contridictions.
The focus of this chapter is not any particular doctrinal controversy; rather, it is an inquiry into the methods of reasoning commonly employed in international criminal law (ICL) discourse. Many of our familiar methods of analysis and argumentation are riddled with contradictions. These contradictions reflect the heritage of ICL – a fusion of important liberal projects that prove on closer inspection to have incompatible aspects. These contradictions manifest, for example, in ICL discourse declaring important liberal principles but then reasoning in ways that lead to contraventions of the stated principles. These incongruities can be found in our methods of interpretation, our embrace of transplanted norms, and ideological assumptions that inform our reasoning. The chapter aims to contribute to ICL discourse by drawing attention to these incongruities, instilling awareness of the need for more sophisticated discourse, and encouraging reflection on how best to resolve such contradictions.
In Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to lawsuits brought against foreign government officials for alleged human rights abuses. The Court did not necessarily clear the way for future human rights litigation against such officials, however, cautioning that such suits "may still be barred by foreign sovereign immunity under the common law". At the same time, the Court provided only minimal guidance as to the content and scope of common law immunity. Especially striking was the Court’s omission of any mention of the immunity of foreign officials under customary international law ("CIL").
In this Article, we explain why, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s inattention in Samantar to the international law backdrop of the case, CIL immunity principles are likely to be relevant to the development of the post-Samantar common law of immunity. In considering the relationship between CIL and common law immunity, the Article makes three contributions. First, it sets forth a case for CIL’s relevance that is not dependent on a single theoretical perspective regarding the domestic status of CIL. Second, it presents a balanced assessment of the rapidly evolving CIL landscape, noting in particular the erosion of immunity protections for human rights violations in criminal proceedings and the lack of a similar erosion - at least so far - in civil suits for damages. Third, by emphasizing institutional considerations rather than arguing for a particular outcome, it isolates and analyzes particular variables - such as the views of the Executive Branch and the policies embodied in domestic statutes - that will shape how CIL affects the common law of immunity after Samantar.
Le choix du thème de la Table-Ronde organisée en février 2009 par l’INDEMER s’est aisément imposé.
Sujet ancien et classique, dira-t-on, en dépit des évolutions profondes subies par le droit de la mer au cours des dernières décennies.
Est-ce si vrai ? Il a semblé, en effet, que la notion même de passage n’était pas dépourvue d’ambiguïté – et à ce titre, méritait d’être analysée – mais aussi qu’elle s’était peut être substantiellement renouvelée.
Ambiguïté, la notion de passage l’est à coup sûr. Pour n’en donner qu’une idée, doit-on considérer comme relevant du passage ce qui fait uniquement l’objet de la réglementation conventionnelle ? Si l’on s’en tient à cette conception, seuls le passage inoffensif à travers les eaux territoriales, le passage en libre transit dans les détroits servant à la navigation internationale et le passage archipélagique, tous trois régis par les dispositions pertinentes de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer du 10 décembre 1982, devraient être retenus.
Mais le concept de passage ne devrait-il pas être entendu au sens naturel du terme, impliquant une certaine étroitesse de l’espace ainsi que la présence de terres à proximité. En d’autres termes, pourrait-on parler, par exemple, de passage dans les eaux d’une mer fermée ou semi-fermée ? Peut-on aussi l’évoquer à propos du franchissement d’une zone de guerre, alors qu’est présent dans ce dernier cas le seul élément d’espace réduit ? Au-delà même et de façon générale, ne devrait-on pas considérer comme utilisés de manière indifférenciée les termes de navigation et de passage ?
Mais, à supposer même que l’on en reste à une définition purement conventionnelle du passage, d’autres formes de ce dernier ne sont-ils pas apparus plus récemment, comme, par exemple, celle de « passage revendicatif » ?
Autant de questions, parmi bien d’autres d’ailleurs, qu’ont soulevé les intervenants à cette Table-Ronde et auxquelles ils tentent d’apporter leurs réponses.
- Volume 340
- Paul R. Beaumont, Reflections on the Relevance of Public International Law to Private International Law Treaty Making
- Sergio M. Carbone, Conflits de lois en droit maritime
- Katharina Boele Woelki, Unifying and Harmonizing Substantive Law and the Role of Conflict of Laws
- Volume 342
- Valeriy Musin, The Influence of the International Sale of Goods Convention on Domestic Law Including Conflict of Laws (with Specific Reference to Russian Law)
- Yasuaki Onuma, A Transcivilizational Perspective on International Law. Questioning Prevalent Cognitive Frameworks in the Emerging Multi-Polar and Multi-Civilizational World of the Twenty-First Century
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
We lack consensus regarding who lawfully may be held in military custody in the contexts that matter most to U.S. national security today—i.e., counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. More to the point, federal judges lack consensus on this question. They have grappled with it periodically since 2002, and for the past three years have dealt with it continually in connection with the flood of habeas corpus litigation arising out of Guantanamo in the aftermath of the Supreme Court‘s 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush. Unfortunately, the resulting detention jurisprudence is shot through with disagreement on points large and small, leaving the precise boundaries of the government‘s detention authority unclear.
Part I opens with an abstract typology of criteria and constraints that might be used to define a detention standard at the individual level. Part II then provides further context with a thumbnail sketch of two overarching disagreements that greatly complicate the detention debate: we do not agree as to which bodies of law govern this question, nor do we agree as to what each particular body of law actually has to say, if anything, regarding individualized detention criteria even if that body is applicable. Part III follows with a survey of about two dozen habeas decisions between 2002 and 2010 in which courts grapple with the individualized-scope issue, using the typology from Part I as a device to facilitate comparison of the decisions.
With respect to affirmative predicates for detention, the survey concludes that something close to consensus has emerged regarding the use of group membership as a sufficient condition for detention, but that there may yet be considerable disagreement as to what counts as membership in this context. The survey also notes that the jury remains out with respect to whether non-member support for certain groups may also function as a sufficient condition for detention. With respect to variables that can function as constraints on detention authority, the survey shows that the courts have developed consensus against employing certain constraints (such as forbidding the use of detention as to citizens, or in circumstances where the government might have a criminal prosecution alternative). On the other hand, the question of geographic constraints on the scope of detention authority remains unsettled.
Part IV considers the ramifications of this descriptive account. I open by arguing that the lingering uncertainty matters a great deal both in terms of the remaining Guantanamo cases and in terms of other military activities that take place in the shadow of the habeas caselaw. I then consider the arguments for and against legislation to reduce the uncertainty, finding that the case for legislation is difficult but ultimately persuasive in the abstract (note that this paper is not a pitch for adopting some particular legislative proposal). Finally, I explain that the detention litigation illustrates three larger phenomena: (i) the dynamic relationship between law and strategic context; (ii) the increasing significance of domestic courts for purposes of developing international humanitarian law, and (iii) the increasing extent to which domestic law challenges both international humanitarian law and international human rights law for primacy when it comes to the legal regulation of national security-related activities.
- Justus Reid Weiner, Avinoam Sharon, & Michelle Morrison, Peacekeepers: Will They Advance Any Prospective Arab-Israeli Peace Agreement?
- Olgun Akbulut, Criteria Developed by the European Court of Human Rights on the Dissolution of Political Parties
- Suzanne Egan & Rachel Murray, Casting a Cold Eye on the Origins and Development of an All-Island Charter of Rights
- Ronald J. Sievert, Working Toward a Legally Enforceable Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime
- Charlie Xiao-chuan Weng, Assessing the Applicability of the Business Judgment Rule and the "Defensive" Business Judgment Rule in the Chinese Judiciary: A Perspective on Takeover Dispute Adjudication
International human rights law requires states to protect people from abuses committed by third parties. Decision-makers widely agree that states have such obligations, but no framework exists for identifying when states have them or what they require. The practice is to varying degrees splintered, inconsistent, and conceptually confused. This article presents a generalized framework to fill that void. The article argues that whether a state must protect someone from third-party harm depends on the state’s relationship with the third party and on the kind of harm caused. A duty-holding state must take reasonable measures to restrain the abuser. That framework is grounded in international law and intended to guide decisions in concrete cases. So after presenting and justifying the framework, the article applies it to two current debates in human rights law: when must a state protect against third-party harms committed outside its territory? And what must states do to protect women from private acts of violence? The article ends by suggesting how the same framework may inform analogous obligations outside human rights law.
d'Aspremont & De Brabandere: The Complementary Faces of Legitimacy in International Law: The Legitimacy of Origin and the Legitimacy of Exercise
Global governance rests on the exercise of public authority by a myriad of actors. In the international order, the more powers and influence these actors acquire, the more their legitimacy proves to be controversial. It is submitted here that the legitimacy of international, regional, and domestic actors that partake in global governance - those considered here as global actors - must be appraised from a two-fold standpoint. Their legitimacy can first be gauged through the lens of the origin of their powers. This is what this Article calls the legitimacy of origin. The origin of the power may often prove an insufficient indicator of an actor’s legitimacy. For this reason, legitimacy is also evaluated in light of the way in which the actor exercises its power. This is what this Article calls the legitimacy of exercise. This Article is based on the assumption that failing to recognize this dual character of legitimacy of actors involved in global and regional governance can undermine any endeavor to grasp the contemporary complexity of the latter.
After sketching some of the contemporary features of legitimacy in international law in Part I, this Article focuses on the extent to which the so-called principle of democratic legitimacy has impinged on how legitimacy of global actors is conceived today in Part II. In Part III, this Article then turns to assessing how, against that backdrop, legitimacy of global actors is evaluated in contemporary practice. Although not ignoring that the question of legitimacy may arise in connection with other actors, this Article focuses on two public global actors in particular, namely governments and international intergovernmental organizations, with a view to demonstrating that the appraisal of the legitimacy of governments differs from that of the legitimacy of international organizations. This Article argues that while the legitimacy of origin has constituted the classical measure to evaluate the legitimacy of governments, recent practice has shifted the paradigm toward the legitimacy of exercise. This Article also submits that the exact opposite paradigm shift is simultaneously taking place in the context of the legitimacy of international organizations, for the legitimacy of international organizations is incrementally reviewed from the vantage point of the legitimacy of origin, despite having classically been based on the legitimacy of exercise.
There are few topics as controversial as globalisation. It is meant to bring economic growth and solve a range of social, cultural and humanitarian problems. However, there are significant debates in relation to the extent that the reality of globalisation reflects this idealized vision. In particular, globalisation has produced a highly interdependent world, rendering state boundaries meaningless and challenging the ideology and limits of certain areas of international law. This book will provide the opportunity to address some of the multifaceted issues provoked by the issue of globalisation.
The book is an exploration of the intricate nexus that emerges as a result of globalisation, inextricably linking together issues of international law, human rights, environmental law and international trade law. Bringing together a number of experts in the field, the book focuses on the areas of social justice and environmental justice, and explores the links that exists between the two and the effect of globalisation on these areas. A variety of topics are addressed throughout the chapters of this book – including biodiversity, the law of the sea, biotechnology, child labour, the rights of women, corporate social responsibility, terrorism and counter-terrorism, water resources, intellectual property rights and the role of non-government organisations. As globalisation has many facets and actors, the contributions to the book engage with interdisciplinary research to deal with the various challenges identified, and critically explore both the potential of globalisation as a vehicle of sustainable and equitable development.
Why do advocacy campaigns succeed in some cases but fail in others? What conditions motivate states to accept commitments championed by principled advocacy movements? Joshua W. Busby sheds light on these core questions through an investigation of four cases - developing-country debt relief, climate change, AIDS, and the International Criminal Court - in the G-7 advanced industrialized countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Drawing on hundreds of interviews with policy practitioners, he employs qualitative, comparative case study methods, including process-tracing and typologies, and develops a framing/gatekeepers argument, emphasizing the ways in which advocacy campaigns use rhetoric to tap into the main cultural currents in the countries where they operate. Busby argues that when values and costs potentially pull in opposing directions, values will win if domestic gatekeepers who are able to block policy change believe that the values at stake are sufficiently important.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
En poursuivant sur la ligne tracée dans une étude de 1976 par l’auteur germanophone Wolfgang Preiser (Professeur émérite de droit pénal et de droit international public de l’Université de Francfort-sur-le-Main), Robert Kolb (professeur de droit international à l’université de Genève) mène une réflexion sur l'existence et l'entité de phénomènes juridiques internationaux dans des civilisations anciennes ne relevant pas du bassin méditérannéen.
Existait-il dans leurs rapports internationaux la perception du droit ? Un droit international public, même embryonnaire, s'est-il formé à travers leurs échanges ? Quels sont au fond les critères définitionnels permettant d'identifier un droit international public ? Si un tel droit s'est formé, quelles institutions et règles a-t-il généré ? Comment les divers phénomènes juridiques internationaux de ces cultures se comparent-ils entre eux ?
Telles sont les questions abordées dans cet ouvrage qui examine les principales cultures extra-européennes dans la période antérieure à l'arrivée du colonisateur et dès lors avant le contact avec la conception juridique occidentale : l'Amérique précolombienne, les Iles polynésiennes, l'Afrique noire, l'Inde et la Chine avec ses régions limitrophes.
Lectureships in Law
London School of Economics and Political Science - Department of Law
£40,323-£46,710 pa inclusive
The Department of Law at the London School of Economics was rated as the best law department in the country by the Research Assessment Exercise 2008. To support our undergraduate and postgraduate teaching programmes and to strengthen our research profile, we are now seeking to appoint at least two lecturers in Law.
For these posts, we invite applications from candidates with teaching experience and evidence of a strong research potential in one or more of the following areas: International Law (preferably International Economic Law), Torts, Employment Law and IT Law.
You will contribute to the scholarship and intellectual life of the School by conducting research which will enhance the School's high reputation as a research-led teaching institution. We encourage the development of teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and all members of the Department's academic staff are expected to contribute to core undergraduate teaching.
A PhD (completed or soon to be completed) or commensurate experience is essential. Appointments will commence on 1 September 2011 or as soon as possible thereafter.
For further information about the Department see http://www/lse.ac.uk/law
To apply for this post please go to www.lse.ac.uk/JobsatLSE and select "Visit the ONLINE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM web page". If you have any queries about applying on the online system, please call 020 7955 7859 or email email@example.com quoting reference LEC/10/15. We value diversity and wish to promote equality at all levels.
The closing date for receipt of applications is Monday 10 January 2011 (11.59pm, UK time). Regrettably, we are unable to accept any late applications.
Interviews will be held on 22 February 2011.
Click here for Employer Profile
IGLP: THE WORKSHOP is an intensive ten day residential program designed for DOCTORAL and POST-DOCTORAL SCHOLARS. The Workshop aims to promote innovative ideas and alternative approaches to issues of global law, economic policy and social justice in the aftermath of the economic crisis. The initiative will bring young scholars and faculty from around the world together with leading faculty working on issues of global law and economic policy for serious research collaboration and debate. In 2011, we will inaugurate a series of new Pro-Seminars designed for small groups of scholars engaged in collaboration aiming toward publication. Alumni of past IGLP Workshops are particularly encouraged to apply to participate in these new Pro-Seminars.
The 2011 Workshop will focus on deepening our understanding of heterodox traditions for understanding global political economy. The ongoing economic crisis has challenged conventional thinking about the relationship between global economic life and national or local political choices and legal arrangements. The result is an opening for new thinking. To date, the academy has not taken advantage of that opening. We are convinced that doing so will require us to revisit and revive the many experimental and alternative traditions of thinking about the international political system, legal order and economy which have existed alongside mainstream thinking for more than a century. This year’s substantive streams will focus on the ability of heterodox traditions -- from sociology, political theory, economics and law – to contribute to our thinking about ways forward from the crisis.
The Workshop is organized to maximize the opportunity for cross-training. Directed by a team of Harvard faculty, the Workshop aims to bring together specialists from across the arts and sciences as well as the professional schools who are interested in the intersections between law, economics and global policy. Our goal will be to understand the history and structure of our contemporary world political and economic system. We will aim to map modern money, finance, development, governance, regulation and social justice, opening them to contestation and debate.
L’école de New Haven de droit international propose une réinterprétation globale et iconoclaste des moyens et des fins du droit international, dont le but doit être l’élaboration d’un « droit international de la dignité humaine ». Cette école de pensée fournit donc au juriste les moyens conceptuels lui permettant d’identifier ou d’inventer et ensuite de recommander les mesures qui concourent à ce but fondamental. Elle nourrit cet intérêt pour les valeurs de sources aussi variées que les policy sciences, les sciences sociales, le contextualisme de Whitehead et le réalisme américain des années trente.
Sans surprise, cette perspective orthogonale à l’esprit positiviste n’a pas facilité l’intérêt de la doctrine française du droit international public, qui est plus centrée sur le fonctionnement interne du système juridique et les liens logiques qui en cimentent les éléments. Cet ouvrage se veut donc une passerelle dans la compréhension d’un pan important de la doctrine américaine.
Ce livre introduit aux différents concepts de l’Ecole de New Haven par trois textes théoriques de W. Michael Reisman, qui livrent aussi en creux un panorama inédit de la doctrine américaine contemporaine. Il illustre ensuite l’intérêt de cette école pour le droit international au gré de neuf contributions consacrées à des défis actuels, qu’il s’agisse des actes juridiques imparfaits, de l’intervention humanitaire, du droit de la guerre, de l’organisation constitutionnelle des Nations Unies, du changement de régime, des droits de l’homme. Cet ouvrage s’adresse autant au théoricien qu’au praticien, tant il illustre le souhait des fondateurs de l’Ecole de New Haven de construire une théorie qui fonde « l’utilisation consciente, délibérée du droit comme un instrument d’action politique ».
Monday, December 13, 2010
The aim of the seminar is to map relevant practices in the framework of four international organizations (the UN, the NATO, the EU and the AU) and to review these practice from the perspective of the law of international responsibility.
The Expert Seminar is a closed event. It is the second of two exploratory seminars (the first one was held in Stockholm, October 2009) that map the terrain of responsibility in multinational military operations. In 2011 a larger conference will be organised that will build on the two exploratory expert seminars and that will discuss possible principles and procedures that may provide (partial) answers to the problems concerning responsibility in military operations.
The seminar is part of the ACIL research project 'Shared Responsibility in International Law' (SHARES), funded by the European Science Foundation. SHARES will examine the allocation of international responsibilities in cases where multiple actors cooperate to pursue common international objectives.
- A.J. Bellia & Bradford Clark, The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations
- Curtis Bradley & Laurence Helfer, International Law, Statutory Construction, and the US Common Law of Foreign Official Immunity
- Stephen Schnably, The Temporal Problems in Declarations of Non-Self-Execution: A New Approach to Judicial Enforcement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Juvenile Justice Cases
- Beth Stephens, The Modern Common Law of Foreign Official Immunity
- Michael Van Alstine, Stare Decisis and Foreign Affairs
- Ingrid Wuerth, Federal Common Law and the Immunity of Foreign Officials
Conference: On the Front-Line of Accountability – War Reporting and Related Contemporary Issues in International Humanitarian and Criminal Law
Organized as part of the launch activities of the Inter-Faculty Research Platform on International Criminal and Humanitarian Law initiated by the University of Amsterdam, the TMC Asser Instituut, Leiden University and the Free University Amsterdam, this conference proposes to examine interrelated issues pertaining to the multi-layered relationship between the media – specifically war correspondents – and the existing legal framework of international humanitarian (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL).
Considering the rapid evolution of contemporary modes and methods of conflict reporting over the course of the past two decades (including the Wikileaks phenomenon), alongside the reinvigoration of the international community’s commitment to the institution of a concrete international criminal justice framework, the conference will:
Assess the changing face of contemporary war reporting from practical ‘front line’, legal and ethical perspectives;
Critically examine the existing regime of protections for journalists under IHL with a view to establishing whether these protections are adequate or are in need of review or supplementation in the form of a dedicated protocol or independent covenant; and
Consider the role of the war correspondent in the context of international criminal proceedings.
This conference will have an inherently cross disciplinary focus and will involve participants with both practical and academic experience in the areas of international criminal law, international humanitarian law, the political and social sciences and war journalism. Speakers include Geoffrey Roberston QC who will provide the keynote address, Ben Anderson, Dr. Michael Kearney, Dr. Julia Hoffmann and David Leigh who is investigations executive editor at the Guardian newspaper.
This handbook explores criminal law systems from around the world, with the express aim of stimulating comparison and discussion. General principles of criminal liability receive prominent coverage in each essay—including discussions of rationales for punishment, the role and design of criminal codes, the general structure of criminal liability, accounts of mens rea, and the rights that criminal law is designed to protect—before the authors turn to more specific offenses like homicide, theft, sexual offenses, victimless crimes, and terrorism.
This key reference covers all of the world's major legal systems—common, civil, Asian, and Islamic law traditions—with essays on sixteen countries on six different continents. The introduction places each country within traditional distinctions among legal systems and explores noteworthy similarities and differences among the countries covered, providing an ideal entry into the fascinating range of criminal law systems in use the world over.
This essay examines the relationship between legitimacy and the presence of both male and female judges on international criminal court benches. It argues that sex representation – an approximate reflection of the ratio of the sexes in the general population – on the bench is an important contributor to legitimacy of international criminal courts. First, it proposes that sex representation affects normative legitimacy because men and women bring different perspectives to judging. Consequently, without both sexes, adjudication is inherently biased. Second, even if one rejects the proposition that men and women "think differently", sex representation affects sociological legitimacy because sex representation signals an impartial bench and capacity to do justice to constituencies involved in the shaping of international criminal adjudication. The essay concludes by raising questions for further study.
En décembre 2009 à Copenhague, 40 000 personnes et 125 chefs de gouvernement se penchaient au chevet d’une planète malade. Il s’agissait pour la communauté internationale de définir un régime international pour lutter contre les changements climatiques.
Le Protocole de Kyoto, adopté en 1997 n’avait qu’un niveau d’ambition limitée en termes de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre ; il n’impose de réduction chiffrée qu’aux seuls pays industrialisés qui l’ont ratifié, et cela pour une période expirant en 2012. Ni les Etats-Unis ni les grands pays émergents n’ont souscrit d’obligations de réduction de leurs émissions au titre du Protocole de Kyoto.
L’« Accord » négocié à Copenhague au sein d’un petit groupe de Chefs d’Etats n’a pu être adopté dans le cadre onusien et les négociations se poursuivent dans la perspective des conférences du Mexique (fin 2010) et de l’Afrique du Sud (fin 2011). Face aux impératifs économiques et de compétitivité internationale, ces négociations dessinent un régime international du climat profondément renouvelé.
La « diplomatie climatique » parviendra-t-elle à relever ce défi sans précédent ?
Ecrit à deux mains par un praticien et une scientifique, cet ouvrage permettra à tous ses lecteurs de mieux comprendre les enjeux des négociations actuelles et avenir, ainsi que les perspectives qu’elles ouvrent pour la gouvernance internationale de l’environnement à l’approche du Sommet « Rio+20 ».
Sunday, December 12, 2010
- A.E. Monsanto, El derecho internacional ambiental en las decisiones arbitrales del Mercosur
- S.A. Rey, El deber de investigar y sancionar las violaciones de derechos humanos en el sistema europeo de protección de los derechos humanos
- G.R. Salas, Los estados latinoamericanos y la jurisdicción de la Corte Internacional de Justicia
- B.M. Tondini, La relación entre el Derecho Internacional Privado y el derecho fiscal internacional. La doctrina de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación
- XXI Congreso Argentino de Derecho Internacional “Dr. Enrique Ferrer Vieyra”, Córdoba, 1º al 3 de octubre de 2009
- A.D. Abruza, Palabras de apertura
- J.A. Barraguirre, El sistema de solución de controversias en materia de inversiones. Panorama actual y proyecciones
- J.J. Cerdeira, Jurisdicción internacional, ley aplicable y cooperación en materia de obligaciones alimentarias
- A. Dreyzin de Klor, La normativa sobre Medio Ambiente en el Derecho del Mercosur y su aplicación en los laudos arbitrales
- M.C. Montenegro, Crisis financiera y cambios políticos internacionales. El papel de las Organizaciones Internacionales
- V. Bazán, Las reparaciones en el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos con particular referencia al sistema interamericano
- A. Rossetti, Sobre las reparaciones en el derecho internacional
- G.E. Chalita, Evaluación del Aprendizaje: Sistema de Respuestas Múltiples
- A.V. Mastache, Evaluación: el uso de las pruebas se selección múltiple
Saturday, December 11, 2010
- Special Issue: Space Law and International Economic Law
- Jason R. Bonin & Fabio Tronchetti, Constructing a Regulatory Regime for the Exploitation of Resources on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: A Balancing Act
- Ban Li & Haifeng Zhao, Governmental Regulations on Commercial Aspects of China's Space Activities
- Valnora Leister, Economic Governance and Space Law - Emerging Foundations for Development of 'Common Pool Resources' in Outer Space
- Watcharachai Jirajindakul & Lalin Kovudhikulrungsri, The Legal Loopholes in Space Law: the Case of Shin Corporation of Thailand - Temasek Holding of Singapore Business Deal
- Lotta Viikari, A New Liability Regime for the Space Sector
- Gerald Goldstein & Horatia Muir Watt, La méthode de la reconnaissance à la lueur de la Convention de Munich du 5 septembre 2007 sur la reconnaissance des partenariats enregistrés
- Séverine Menétrey, La participation "amicale" de la Commission européenne dans les arbitrages liés aux investissements intracommunautaires
- Jean-Grégoire Mahinga, La délimitation de la frontière maritime entre la Roumanie et l'Ukraine dans la mer Noire
- Renan Le Mestre, Une nécessaire manifestation institutionnelle de respect et d'estime de soi : la cour caribéenne de justice
Friday, December 10, 2010
- Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Designing Bespoke Transitional Justice: A Pluralist Process Approach
- Daniel Benoliel & Ronen Perry, Israel, Palestine, and the ICC
- Paul D. Carrington, Enforcing International Corrupt Practices Law
- Robin Churchill, Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2009
- Julian Roberts, Aldo Chircop, & Siân Prior, Area-based Management on the High Seas: Possible Application of the IMO's Particularly Sensitive Sea Area Concept
- Seline Trevisanut, Search and Rescue Operations in the Mediterranean: Factor of Cooperation or Conflict?
- Erik Franckx, The International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritage of Mankind: The Need for States to Establish the Outer Limits of their Continental Shelf
- Efthymios Papastavridis, Enforcement Jurisdiction in the Mediterranean Sea: Illicit Activities and the Rule of Law on the High Seas
The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in the wake of World War II. The dark shadows of war have never fully receded from Europe however. Armed conflict has resurged time and again, from Northern Ireland to Cyprus and Turkey, and from the former Yugoslavia to the Caucasus. This book focuses on the margins of conflict: human rights aspects of transitions from peace to armed conflict and vice versa. Firstly, it seeks to explore what limits human rights put on European societies which are on the brink of armed conflict. Secondly, it surveys the consequences of human rights violations committed during the armed conflict by looking at the aftermath of war. In a stimulating way, experts in their field offer food for thought on a broad range of material and especially procedural issues such as the territorial scope of the Convention, states of emergency, freedom of expression and conflict escalation, obligations relating to enforced disappearances, interim measures, and pilot judgments. Taken together, they reflect both the potential and limitations of human rights in the run-up to conflicts and their aftermath.
- Ori Aronson, Out of Many: Military Commissions, Religious Tribunals, and the Democratic Virtues of Court Specialization
- David J. Bederman, Law of the Land, Law of the Sea: The Lost Link Between Customary International Law and the General Maritime Law
- Julian G. Ku, The Curious Case of Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute: A Flawed System of Judicial Lawmaking
- Jason Webb Yackee, Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment? Some Hints from Alternative Evidence
Thursday, December 9, 2010
- Natsuko H. Nicholls, Paul K. Huth & Benjamin J. Appel, When Is Domestic Political Unrest Related to International Conflict? Diversionary Theory and Japanese Foreign Policy, 1890–1941
- Hunjoon Kim & Kathryn Sikkink, Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries
- Joe Clare, Ideological Fractionalization and the International Conflict Behavior of Parliamentary Democracies
- Jacob D. Kathman, Civil War Contagion and Neighboring Interventions
- Sean D. Ehrlich, The Fair Trade Challenge to Embedded Liberalism
- Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham & Nils B. Weidmann, Shared Space: Ethnic Groups, State Accommodation, and Localized Conflict
- Faten Ghosn, Getting to the Table and Getting to Yes: An Analysis of International Negotiations
- David Lektzian, Brandon C. Prins & Mark Souva, Territory, River, and Maritime Claims in the Western Hemisphere: Regime Type, Rivalry, and MIDs from 1901 to 2000
- Johannes Urpelainen, Regulation under Economic Globalization
- Megan Shannon, Daniel Morey &Frederick J. Boehmke, The Influence of International Organizations on Militarized Dispute Initiation and Duration
- Arman Grigoryan, Third-Party Intervention and the Escalation of State-Minority Conflicts
- Patrick Bernhagen & Neil J. Mitchell, The Private Provision of Public Goods: Corporate Commitments and the United Nations Global Compact
- Lorenz Langer, Panacea or Pathetic Fallacy? The Swiss Ban on Minarets
- David J. Doorey, In Defense of Transnational Domestic Labor Relations
- Susan W. Brenner & Leo L. Clarke, Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts
- Caroline Cavaleri Rudaz, Did Trinko Really Kill Antitrust Price Squeeze Claims? A Critical Approach to the Linkline Decision Through a Comparison of E.U. and U.S. Case Law
- Sociology and Human Rights: New Engagements
- Patricia Hynes, Michele Lamb, Damien Short, & Matthew Waites, Sociology and human rights: confrontations, evasions and new engagements
- Damien Short, Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach
- Victoria Canning, Who's human? Developing sociological understandings of the rights of women raped in conflict
- Joanna Ferrie, Sociology and human rights: what have they got to say about care and dignity?
- Eunna Lee-Gong, Contestations over rights: from establishment to implementation of the National Basic Livelihood Security System in South Korea
- Michele Grigolo, Human rights and cities: the Barcelona Office for Non-Discrimination and its work for migrants
- Hannah Miller, From ‘rights-based’ to ‘rights-framed’ approaches: a social constructionist view of human rights practice
- Jennifer Melvin, Reconstructing Rwanda: balancing human rights and the promotion of national reconciliation
- Patricia Hynes, Global points of ‘vulnerability’: understanding processes of the trafficking of children and young people into, within and out of the UK
- Matthew Waites, Human rights, sexual orientation and the generation of childhoods: analysing the partial decriminalisation of ‘unnatural offences’ in India
- Michele Lamb, Loyalty and human rights: liminality and social action in a divided society
In a world dominated by considerations of material and security threats, Japan provides a fascinating case for why, and under what conditions, a state would choose to adopt international norms and laws that are seemingly in direct conflict with its domestic norms. Approaching compliance from within a constructivist framework, author Petrice R. Flowers analyzes three treaties—addressing refugee policy, women's employment, and the use of land mines—that Japan has adopted. Refugees, Women, and Weapons probes how international relations and domestic politics both play a role in constructing state identity, and how state identity in turn influences compliance.
Flowers argues that, although state desire for legitimacy is a key factor in norm adoption, to achieve anything other than a low level of compliance requires strong domestic advocacy. She offers a comprehensive theoretical model that tests the explanatory power of two understudied factors: the strength of nonstate actors and the degree to which international and domestic norms conflict. Flowers evaluates how these factors, typically studied and analyzed individually, interact and affect one another.
- David Collins, Enviromental Impact Statements and Public Participation in International Investment Law
- Robert W McGee, Ethical Issues in Transfer Pricing
- Chotika Wittayawarakul, Institutional Aspects of International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement Systems and the Intergration of External Norms
- Thi Anh Nguyet Le & Hong Quy Mai, Double Counting in the US Legislation against Non-Market Economies: ‘As Such’ and ‘As Applied’ Analysis
This paper will form the introductory chapter of a research project the authors are presently directing, entitled International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World. The edited volume with the same title, to be published in 2012, will consist of 24 chapters and will be co-edited by the two authors. In its present manifestation, the paper serves as advertisement for the core aims and goals of the project, as a way of engaging with the wider scholarly community and debating the issues the project raises before the book is published.
The core idea of the project is that positivism as family of theoretical approaches to international law has radically transformed itself in the 21st century, not least because of the critique leveled at ‘classical’ forms of international legal positivism. This ‘post-modern’ positivism is different, because it takes into account the arguments of inter alia the Critical Legal Studies movement while departing from it with respect to its own constructive project. The project introduced here will seek to carry out an in-depth scholarly study of where the positivist approach to international legal scholarship stands at the end of the first decade of the 21st century and whether it can be sustainable. This means taking a hard look at whether positivism remains a cogent approach for the future of international legal scholarship, and, if so, what forms it is, can be, or ought to be taking. We will enquire whether the current state of the international society and of international legal scholarship calls for a profound renewal of the paradigms of international legal positivism and what this renewal looks like.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
International law governing international armed conflict has grown since 1945 to include many crimes for which individuals may be held criminally liable. The ICTY and its supporters claim that much of this law has been extended to non-international armed conflict. Nevertheless, states have resisted the extension. The two domains of war are too different, legally and politically, for any simple extension of the law. What, really, has caused the rapid growth of internal-armed-conflict law at the ICTY? The answer given in this paper is that it has been accomplished by an ICTY moral philosophy masquerading as method. The tribunal’s judges, free from state or legislative oversight, proceeded almost immediately after the institution’s establishment to create a legal code for non-international armed conflict. They were well aware that the majority of states - which ultimately decide the substance of international law - were, as late as 1977, opposed to or had doubts about, such expansionism. Under a veneer of legality, a humanitarian sentiment that had been blocked by states at the diplomatic conferences convened by the ICRC found an opening with the establishment of the ICTY. Some of the very people who had been most vocal about the moral deficiency of the states’ position obtained senior appointments at the new tribunal. In the name of a kinder and fairer world for victims of civil war, what had been a regulatory desert in international law was systematically populated with criminal-law rules transposed from the field of international humanitarian law. Can the ICTY’s law survive in the long term against the power of sovereign interest? I consider this question in the light of the United States’ critique of the ICRC’s 2005 customary-law study.
The period since 1989 has seen both statehood at its peak, and at its low point. On the one hand, a quasi-colonial (soviet) empire dissolved, and numerous new states emerged. Moreover, secessionist movements all over the world seek to become independent states. On the other hand, the globalisation of markets and the emergence of global problems have, especially in the 1990s, led to the perception of a weakening or even decline of the nation state. Global governance, the strengthening of transnational or even supranational regimes, large scale privatisation and the rise of “non-state actors” have been both a cause and effect of this trend. The concomitant international legal discourses have been those on secession and ethno-nationalism on the one hand, and those on the transformations or disaggregation of states, on transnational networks and multilevel governance, on the other hand. The paper brings together these discourses.
Already before 1989, the facticist concept of the state as a subject of international law had been overcome, and negative conditions of legality (non-use of force and non-violation of self determination) had been added as criteria of statehood (or at least of recognition). After 1989, legality has come to play a positive role, with the idea of a remedial secession, with self determination as a legal title to statehood.
The state, as an international legal subject, of course needs a factual basis. But for the purpose of legal analysis, statehood is a legal concept, and not a “primary fact”. The post-1989 concept of “failed state” refers to this factual side of statehood. And the post-1989 concept of “rogue states” relates to its legal side.
Effectiveness is a bridge-concept which brings together the factual and the legal side of statehood. Effectiveness means both real factual power as opposed to powerless or even virtual institutions. But effectiveness also means power (independent of the lawfulness of its exercise) as opposed to institutions satisfying standards of legality or even legitimacy.
The paper concludes that effectiveness is and should remain a necessary, but is not a sufficient criterion for statehood. Political entities which are arguably effective but not legal (e.g. Abkhazia in Georgia) should not count as states in terms of international law. But political entities which are legal but barely effective (such as Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina) should probably not count as states either. However, the standards of effectiveness are a highly relative one. In the era of globalisation, no state is fully effective. If and only if the international legal rules on states continue to embody the concept of effectiveness in the sense just described, international law will perform well as a factor of order in international relations.
This book examines to what extent the right of self-defence, as laid down in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, permits States to launch military operations against other States. In particular, it focuses on the occurrence of an 'armed attack' - the crucial trigger for the activation of this right. In light of the developments since 9/11, the author analyses relevant physical and verbal customary practice, ranging from the 1974 Definition of Aggression to recent incidents such as the 2001 US intervention in Afghanistan and the 2006 Israeli intervention in Lebanon. The notion of 'armed attack' is examined from a threefold perspective. What acts can be regarded as an 'armed attack'? When can an 'armed attack' be considered to take place? And from whom must an 'armed attack' emanate? By way of conclusion, the different findings are brought together in a draft 'Definition of Armed Attack'.
- Stefan P. Fleischauer, Non-State Negotiations between China and Taiwan – On the Road to European-Style Integration?
- Tom Hart, How Far Can They Succeed? Systematic Speculation on the Prospects for Further Advances in Cross-Strait Relations
- Der-Chin Horng, The EU Model for a Taiwan-China Free Trade Agreement
- Michael Romancov & Magda Leichtová, Kosovo, Ossetia and Abkhazia – A New Strategy of Superpowers? Challenges and Risks for Taiwan
- Günter Schucher, Where Minds Meet: The “Professionalization” of Cross-Strait Academic Exchange
- Han-yi Shaw, Revisiting the Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Examining Legal Claims and New Historical Evidence under International Law and the Traditional East Asian World Order
- Chun-Yuan Lin, Global Positioning and Transjudicialism: Taiwanese Experience from a Global Perspective
- Ivan Willis Rasmussen, Regional Conflict and Contrasting Nationalisms: The Impact of Nationalism on the China-Taiwan Conflict Negotiation
- Chapter I Introduction and Purpose
- John H. Jackson, Introductory Note to the Special Issue
- Thomas Cottier & Rosa M. Lastra, Introduction to the Special Issue
- Chapter II The Crisis of 2007-2009: Nature, Causes and Reactions
- Rosa M. Lastra & Geoffrey Wood, The Crisis of 2007–09: Nature, Causes, and Reactions
- Chapter III Architecture and Conceptual Issues
- R. Michael Gadbaw, Systemic Regulation of Global Trade and Finance: A Tale of Two Systems
- Andreas F. Lowenfeld, The International Monetary System: A Look Back Over Seven Decades
- Luis Garicano & Rosa M. Lastra, Towards a New Architecture for Financial Stability: Seven Principles
- Chris Brummer, Why Soft Law Dominates International Finance—and not Trade
- Joseph J. Norton, The ‘Santiago Principles’ for Sovereign Wealth Funds: A Case Study on International Financial Standard-Setting Processes
- Chapter IV Financial Market Regulation
- Christian Tietje and Matthias Lehmann, The Role and Prospects of International Law in Financial Regulation and Supervision
- Rolf H. Weber, Multilayered Governance in International Financial Regulation and Supervision
- Charles A. E. Goodhart & Rosa M. Lastra, Border Problems
- Joel P. Trachtman, The International Law of Financial Crisis: Spillovers, Subsidiarity, Fragmentation and Cooperation
- Steve Charnovitz, Addressing Government Failure Through International Financial Law
- Hal S. Scott, Reducing Systemic Risk Through the Reform of Capital Regulation
- Christine Kaufmann & Rolf H. Weber, The Role of Transparency in Financial Regulation
- Donald C. Langevoort, Global Securities Regulation after the Financial Crisis
- Chapter V Trade, Competition and Tax Related Aspects
- Thomas Cottier & Markus Krajewski, What Role for Non-Discrimination and Prudential Standards in International Financial Law?
- Panagiotis Delimatsis & Pierre Sauvé, Financial Services Trade after the Crisis: Policy and Legal Conjectures
- Gary N. Horlick & Peggy A. Clarke, WTO Subsidies Discipline During and after the Crisis
- Philip Marsden & Ioannis Kokkoris, The Role of Competition and State Aid Policy in Financial and Monetary Law
- Kern Alexander, International Regulatory Reform and Financial Taxes
- Chapter VI Monetary Regulation
- Ernst Baltensperger & Thomas Cottier, The Role of International Law in Monetary Affairs
- Gary Hufbauer & Daniel Danxia Xie, Financial Stability and Monetary Policy: Need for International Surveillance
- Sean Hagan, Enhancing the IMF’s Regulatory Authority
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Barnidge: The Principle of Proportionality Under International Humanitarian Law and Operation Cast Lead
This chapter critically examines the principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law and contextualizes its vulnerabilities by looking at Israel’s actions during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009. It begins by providing a black letter law overview of the principle. Although widely accepted, the proportionality principle suffers from significant shortcomings that impact its usefulness as a predictable tool for distinguishing between the lawful and the unlawful, particularly in the context of asymmetrical warfare. These shortcomings exist at both a theoretical level, in the abstract, and at a practical level. To focus these discussions, the second half of this chapter looks at the largely negative international reaction to Israel’s actions during Operation Cast Lead. This reaction, which was, and has been, typically couched with a feigned certainty that belies and leaves unanswered the theoretical shortcomings of the principle of proportionality, suggests that, more often than not, proportionality acts as the ultimate exemplar of law used instrumentally, as a tool to further a particular politics and paradigm of power.
Although human trafficking has a long and ignoble history, it is only recently that trafficking has become a major political issue for states and the international community and the subject of detailed international rules. This book presents the first-ever comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the international law of human trafficking. Anne T. Gallagher calls on her direct experience working within the United Nations to chart the development of new international laws on this issue. She links these rules to the international law of state responsibility as well as key norms of international human rights law, transnational criminal law, refugee law, and international criminal law, in the process identifying and explaining the major legal obligations of states with respect to preventing trafficking, protecting and supporting victims, and prosecuting perpetrators. This is a timely and groundbreaking work: a unique and valuable resource for policymakers, advocates, practitioners, and scholars working in this new, controversial, and important field.