Comment et pourquoi des organisations internationales transgressent la loi en toute légalité. Les contre-mesures sont des mesures intrinsèquement contraires au droit des gens mais dont l’illicéité est écartée en raison de la finalité particulière à laquelle elles ont affectées. Ce phénomène ne se limite pas aux relations entre États : les organisations internationales font également usage de cette technique de justice privée en vue de sanctionner les violations du droit international commises par leurs membres ou par un tiers. L’auteur rapporte la pratique pertinente des organisations (Nations unies, institutions spécialisées, Union européenne,…) en la matière. Il étudie notamment le fondement de la capacité de l’organisation à prendre des contre-mesures, le titre que l’organisation peut faire valoir en matière de contre-mesures (notamment en cas d’atteinte à l’intérêt général de la communauté internationale) ou les conditions qui régissent l’exercice des contre-mesures par l’organisation, en ce compris l’articulation adéquate entre celles-ci et les sanctions institutionnelles prévues par l’acte constitutif. Ces questions ont rarement été examinées par la doctrine. Il en ressort que le régime applicable aux contre-mesures des organisations internationales n’est pas fondamentalement différent de celui gouvernant les contre-mesures étatiques. L’étude rend compte des travaux récents de la Commission du droit international consacrés à la question. Le sujet fournit aussi l’occasion de revenir sur les problèmes que continue de susciter la réglementation des contre-mesures des États élaborée par la Commission. L’auteur procure à ces problèmes un éclairage substantiel et renouvelé.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Symposium: War Bound by Law: Non-State Actors and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Twenty-First Century
- John B. Bellinger, III, Terrorism And Changes to the Laws of War
- Eyal Benvenisti, The Legal Battle to Define the Law on Transnational Asymmetric Warfare
- Michael A. Newton: Reconsidering Reprisals
- Michael P. Scharf, The Torture Lawyers
- Elies van Sliedregt, European Approaches to Fighting Terrorism
- Matthew C. Waxman, The Structure of Terrorism Threats and the Laws of War
- Jamie A. Williamson, Challenges of Twenty-First Century Conflicts: A Look at Direct Participation in Hostilities
The conference will bring together the leading international and Australian scholars in jurisprudence and in international human-rights law to reflect upon the traditional, 'classical' dilemmas and taxonomies in the philosophy of human rights, in the light of recent developments in theories of rights and in the international law of human rights.
Confirmed speakers include: Professor Tom Campbell, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt University (CSU); Professor Leslie Green, Oxford University; Professor David Kinley, University of Sydney; Professor Susan Marks, London School of Economics; Professor Thomas Pogge, Yale University and CAPPE; Professor Jeremy Waldron, Oxford University and New York University; and Professor Neil Walker, University of Edinburgh.
This Article offers three guidelines for adjudicating claims to foreign official immunity after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Samantar v. Yousuf, which held that an individual defendant's immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts “is properly governed by the common law.” First, courts should not conflate status-based and conduct-based immunity. Second, courts should not assume that the deference accorded to Executive suggestions of status-based immunity necessarily translates to claims of conduct-based immunity. Third, courts should reject the argument that all acts performed under color of law or in an individual’s “official capacity” are entitled to conduct-based immunity. There are many bars to civil suits against, and criminal prosecutions of, foreign defendants in U.S. courts for alleged human rights violations. However, conduct-based immunity will not normally prevent a U.S. court that otherwise has personal and subject-matter jurisdiction from adjudicating claims involving an individual defendant’s private or hybrid acts if two conditions hold: first, the applicable law provides for individual responsibility, and second, the proceedings seek to impose consequences solely on the individual, not the state itself.
- Oksana Tsymbrivska, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, WTO DSB Decisions in the EC Legal Order: Approach of the Community Courts
- M. Rafiqul Islam & Md Rizwanul Islam, The Proposed Australia-China FTA: Protectionism over Complementarity?
- Henry Gao, The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement: A Critical Analysis
Weissbrodt, Hansen, & Nesbitt: The Role of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in Interpreting and Developing Humanitarian Law
The interaction between human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL) has received a great deal of scholarly attention. Commentators note the increased presence of IHL in the work of human rights bodies. There remains an interesting gap in the debate, however: while human rights bodies may be referencing international humanitarian law, what are they doing with it? To what extent are they interpreting its protections under a human rights framework? Are they performing substantive or precedential analysis of IHL? This article addresses one measure of that gap by comprehensively examining the work of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as it relates to the interpretation of international humanitarian law.
This article finds that the CRC has incorporated the corpus of IHL into the Children's Convention and argues that it has an important role to play in interpreting international humanitarian law. The Children's Convention is the only core international human rights treaty that discusses humanitarian law explicitly and has an interpretive body to monitor its implementation. As a result, the CRC is the only human rights treaty body with a substantial existing humanitarian law jurisprudence. Further, the CRC considers reports from States under the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, which recalls in its preamble the obligation of States parties “to abide by the provisions of international humanitarian law.” These features suggest that the CRC has unique institutional potential to interpret humanitarian law.
Yet while the CRC offers analysis of IHL, its analysis is implicit. It is possible, by assembling various pronouncements in the Concluding Observations, to find examples of States parties’ obligations under IHL as they relate to respect for and protection of children. Nonetheless, the Committee’s structure and mandate prevent it from performing fact-specific and potentially precedential analysis. Still, we argue that the Committee may be able to modify slightly the format of its Concluding Observations in order to provide more explicit links from IHL to the Convention. Moreover, through its consistent pronouncements as to certain mandatory protections for children in situations of armed conflict, the Committee may be developing and solidifying norms of customary international humanitarian law.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
This article describes the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the geographic reach of federal statutes. It argues that the Court’s decisions are a parade of inconsistencies that fail to give clear guidance to lower courts, the executive branch, and Congress. The result is that no one can know with any certainty whether a statute of general application will be construed to extend to places outside U.S. boundaries but under U.S. control, such as Guantanamo Bay, or to foreign activities with domestic effects, or to foreign ships within U.S. territory. The article proposes that the Court return its jurisprudence to coherence by adopting a new canon: a presumption against extrajurisdictionality. Under the proposal, the Court would look for guidance to the body of international law that allocates legislative jurisdiction among countries. If that law provides the United States with sole or primary legislative jurisdiction over a situation, the Court would have a green light to construe the statute without any presumption against its application. If the United States has no basis for jurisdiction, the light would be red. There would be a strict presumption against application of the statute, which could be overcome only by a clear statement in the law itself. Finally, situations in neither of these categories would fall under a yellow light: if the United States has some basis for jurisdiction, but not the sole or primary basis, then the Court would employ a soft presumption against application of the statute, which could be overcome by any indication of legislative intent to do so.
- Luke Nottage & Richard Garnett, Top 20 Things to Change in or Around Australia’s International Arbitration Act
- Zhu Weidong, Determining the Validity of Arbitration Agreements in China: Towards a New Approach
- Byung Chol Yoon & Brian C. Oh, The Standards for Refusing to Enforce an Arbitral Award on Public Policy Grounds: A Korean Case Study
- Gabriël Moens & Sam Luttrell, Interim Measures of Protection under the Arbitration Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
- Helene Bubrowski, International Arbitration v. Local Remedies: The Role of Domestic Courts in NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration
- Crina Baltag, The Energy Charter Treaty and the ‘Provisional Application’ Rule
- Jill C. Engle, Collaborative Law in Legal Education: No Time Like the Present
- Sport and Arbitration Symposium
- Hilary A. Findlay And Marcus M. Mazzucco, Degrees of Intervention in Sport-Specific Arbitration: Are We Moving Towards a Universal Model of Decision-Making?
- Stephen A. Starks & Larry D. Bowers, A Quest for Truth: The Evolution and Nuances of the USADA Adjudication System for Anti-Doping Rules Violations Conducted Through Arbitration
- Ian Blackshaw, The Contribution of the Court of Arbitration for Sport to an Emerging “Lex Sportiva”
- Maureen A. Weston, Anatomy of the First Public International Sports Arbitration and the Future of Public Arbitration After USADA v. Floyd Landis
Taking as it starting point a critical introduction to the democratic debate in international law, the object of the present work is that of contributing to the critical development of an appropriate methodology for the exam of the normative pretension according to which the international legal order would be developing within itself a particular conception of the liberal State. Such a conception would be premised in the gradual emergence of an international legal obligation that would command the development within every sovereign state of institutions of democratic governance, thus marking the transition from the paradigm of equivalence of domestic political regimes in international law to the exclusive legitimacy of liberal democracy in this legal order. Note: downloadable document is in Spanish
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Dynamic (Evolutive) Interpretation of Treaties, Part II
- Johan G. Lammers, The Role of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Dutch Approach and Experience
- Agnieszka Szpak, Punishing War Criminals
- Valery Nzogue Angone, L'AGOA: Un Trade not Aid pour accélérer l'intégration de l'Afrique dans le commerce international
- Alfred H.A. Soons, A Sustainable Career: The Academic Contribution of Prof. Johan G. Lammers
This essay reflects ongoing research that investigates women who played roles in war crimes trials at Nuremberg, Germany, and situates those women within the context of social developments during the post-World War II. The essay mentions women who were defendants, journalists, or witnesses; however, it focuses on some of the women, mostly Americans, who served as prosecutors at Nuremberg.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Haften zivile Vorgesetzte, wenn sie Straftaten ihrer Untergebenen nicht verhindern?
Nora Karsten untersucht in einer breit angelegten, 10 Länder umfassenden rechtsvergleichenden Analyse, ob der völkerstrafrechtliche Grundsatz der Vorgesetztenverantwortlichkeit (command responsibility) auch für den nicht-militärischen Bereich anerkannt ist, und ob es wie in Artikel 28 des Rom-Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (ICC) unterschiedliche Haftungsvoraussetzungen für nicht-militärische und militärische Vorgesetzte gibt.
Die Ergebnisse der rechtsvergleichenden Untersuchung werden sodann für eine Auslegung von Artikel 28 des Rom-Statuts herangezogen. Zudem macht die Verfasserin Vorschläge, wie militärische, de facto militärische und nicht-militärische Vorgesetzte voneinander abgegrenzt werden können.
Le statut des organisations non gouvernementales est l’une des multiples Arlésiennes du droit international. Les tentatives visant à expliquer le phénomène non gouvernemental avec les seuls outils des internationalistes ne conduisent qu’à une vision parcellaire de la réalité, voire à des impasses. Cet ouvrage tente de dépasser ces difficultés, en s’attachant à cerner de manière empirique la teneur du régime juridique effectivement applicable à l’existence et à l’activité internationales des ONG.
De l’étude circonstanciée des règles internes et internationales applicables à toute ONG, mais aussi des particularités de certaines entités atypiques (de la Croix-Rouge au Comité international olympique et à l’Eglise catholique), se dégage ainsi un droit positif cohérent, fondé sur la liberté d’exister et de participer des ONG.
Il dresse les contours d’une entité qui, liberté avant d’être institution, actrice autant que spectatrice de l’action et du débat intergouvernemental, en vient à constituer, dans certains cas, un nouveau modèle de gouvernance internationale.
Genocide and Political Groups provides a comprehensive examination of the crime of genocide in connection with political groups. It offers a detailed empirical study of the current status of political groups under customary international law, as well as a comprehensive theoretical analysis of whether political genocide should be recognized as a separate crime by the international community.
The book discusses whether a stand-alone crime of political genocide should be recognized under international law. It begins by examining the historical development of genocide and critically assessing the unique requirements of the crime. It then demonstrates that other international offences -notably crimes against humanity and war crimes- are not workable substitutes for a specific offence that protects political groups.
This is followed by an analytical study of the protection of human groups under international law. The book proposes a new theory that links the protection of groups to individual rights of a certain character that give rise to the group's existence. It then applies that theory in evaluating whether political groups are legitimate candidates for specific protection from physical and biological destruction 'as such'.
The writing includes an exhaustive analysis of state practice and opinio juris on the treatment of political groups. It empirically refutes claims that political groups are protected already from genocide by virtue of post-Convention developments in customary international law. In response to this legal reality, however, the book analyses the theoretical and public policy justifications for international criminal law and demonstrates that the international community would be well served by creating a separate international crime to address political genocide.
- Lawrence W. Sherman, Knowledge-Based Policing: India and the Global Revolution in Crime Prevention
- Jean-Louis Halpérin, Western Legal Transplants and India
- Agustín Parise, Legal Transplants and Codification: Exploring the North American Sources of the Civil Code of Argentina (1871)
- Stephen Marks & Nicholas Cooper, The Responsibility to Protect: Watershed, or Old Wine in a New Bottle?
- Subramanya Sirish Tamvada, TRIPS and Human Rights: The Case of India
- Supriya Routh, Globalizing Labor Standards: The Developed-Developing Divide
- Jeremy Sarkin, How to Better Infuse Gender into the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Process?
- Y.S.R. Murthy, Refining the Methodology of Rights-Based Monitoring: The Role of Human
- David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, & Joanne D. Eisen, Justice for All: A Better Path to Global Firearms Control
- A.T. Shehu, The True Foundation of Judicial Review: A View from Nigeria
- Matthew Jordan Cochran, A Lockean Defense of the Political Question Doctrine’s Application in War Powers Cases
There have been some interesting decisions on procedural matters in investment arbitration recently (including Quiborax SA v Bolivia, Giovanna a Beccara and others v Argentina). This conference will look at some of these issues including disclosure of evidence, state privilege, working with witnesses and experts. It will also cover consolidation of claims and transparency (open hearings, webcasting, transcript availability). Some of the topics including costs and mechanisms to control costs and time of the arbitral process will be considered from the perspective of whether investment arbitration is or should be different from commercial arbitration. It is hoped that through this dialogue the speakers will be able to distil some best practices on certain procedural matters.
- Gary Horlick & Edwin Vermulst, 30 Years of Public Service at the WTO: A Tribute to Jan Woznowski, Director of the Rules Division
- Jorge Miranda, Causal Link and Non-attribution as Interpreted in WTO Trade Remedy Disputes
- Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Tax Discipline in the WTO
- Debra P. Steger, The Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement: Ahead of its Time or Time for Reform?
- Andrew L. Stoler, The Evolution of Subsidies Disciplines in GATT and the WTO
- Gerard Depayre, An Innovative Approach to Multilateral Negotiations: The Shadow of Jan Woznowski
- Neo Jingjie Fu, Impasse in the DDA NAMA Sectoral Negotiations and Possible Solutions
- Emily Reid, Regulatory Autonomy in the EU and WTO: Defining and Defending Its Limits
- Johan Paul Lindeque & Steven Michael McGuire, Non-market Capabilities and the Prosecution of Trade Remedy Cases in the United States
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Combs: Fact-Finding Without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions
Fact-finding Without Facts explores international criminal fact-finding – empirically, conceptually, and normatively. After reviewing thousands of pages of transcripts from various international criminal tribunals, the author reveals that international criminal trials are beset by numerous and severe fact-finding impediments that substantially impair the tribunals’ ability to determine who did what to whom. These fact-finding impediments have heretofore received virtually no publicity, let alone scholarly treatment, and they are deeply troubling not only because they raise grave concerns about the accuracy of the judgments currently being issued but because they can be expected to similarly impair the next generation of international trials that will be held at the International Criminal Court. After setting forth her empirical findings, the author considers their conceptual and normative implications. The author concludes that international criminal tribunals purport a fact-finding competence that they do not possess, and as a consequence, base their judgments on a less precise, more amorphous method of fact-finding than they publicly acknowledge. The book ends with an exploration of various normative questions, including the most foundational: whether the international tribunals’ fact-finding impediments fatally undermine the international criminal justice project.
It has never been more important to understand how international law enables and constrains international politics. By drawing together the legal theory of Lon Fuller and the insights of constructivist international relations scholars, this book articulates a pragmatic view of how international obligation is created and maintained. First, legal norms can only arise in the context of social norms based on shared understandings. Second, internal features of law, or 'criteria of legality', are crucial to law's ability to promote adherence, to inspire 'fidelity'. Third, legal norms are built, maintained or destroyed through a continuing practice of legality. Through case studies of the climate change regime, the anti-torture norm, and the prohibition on the use of force, it is shown that these three elements produce a distinctive legal legitimacy and a sense of commitment among those to whom law is addressed.
- Mark Kantor, A Code of Conduct for Party-Appointed Experts in International Arbitration – Can One be Found?
- Martin King & Ian Meredith, Partial Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards
- Oliver R. Jones & Chido Dunn, Consent, Forced Renegotiation and Expropriation in International Law
- Masood Ahmed, Arbitration Clauses: Fairness, Justice and Commercial Certainty
- Ceyda Süral, Nearly a Decade On – The Perception of International Arbitration Law by Turkish Courts
- Patricia Shaughnessy, Pre-arbitral Urgent Relief: The New SCC Emergency Arbitrator Rules
- Jamie Shookman, Too Many Forums for Investment Disputes? ICSID Illustrations of Parallel Proceedings and Analysis
- Wei Shen, Is This a Great Leap Forward? — A Comparative Review of the Investor-State Arbitration Clause in the ASEAN-China Investment Treaty: From BIT Jurisprudential and Practical Perspectives
- Pietro Ferrario, Challenge to Arbitrators: Where a Counsel and an Arbitrator Share the Same Office—The Italian Perspective
- Barbara Helene Steindl, Learned Lawyers Attest: It Is Advantageous To Be Right in (an Austrian) Court
University of Reading
Second Conference on India-United States Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
16-17 September 2010
The 123 Agreement was signed by the United States and India in 2008 to operationalise the Joint Statement by United States President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005 whereby India agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and place the former under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The purpose of the Agreement is to facilitate the exchange of civil nuclear technology between India and the United States. The Agreement is exceptional in that it goes against the grain of several decades of United States non-proliferation practice and implicitly recognises India’s status as a nuclear weapons state. Despite claims that the Agreement benefits India by ending its nuclear isolation and contributing to its burgeoning energy needs, there has been stinted opposition to the Agreement; the Singh government narrowly survived a no-confidence motion brought by opposition parties in 2008 over the issue.
The University of Reading, in association with the Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, is organising its second workshop on 16-17 September 2010 to examine various issues arising from the Agreement. The conference, which is generously funded by the British Academy, will run a full day of panels on 16 September and morning panels on 17 September. It will take place at the School of Law, Foxhill House, University of Reading. Panellists from South Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States will address such topics as the Agreement’s implications for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, issues of international trade law, human rights, international environmental law and theoretical perspectives.
Those who would like to attend the workshop can register by contacting Ms. Angela Foxon (email@example.com), who can advise as to payment. The fee, which includes lunches and coffee breaks, is £30 for non-students and £15 for students. Reading staff and students can attend free of charge (though are still required to register). Numbers are limited. Cancellations to bookings made on or before Friday, 3 September will be refunded in full. Cancellations received after 3 September will be non-refundable. For any questions, please contact Dr. Robert P. Barnidge, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Professor Cançado Trindade develops his Leitmotiv of identification of a corpus juris increasingly oriented to the fulfillment of the needs and aspirations of human beings, of peoples and of humankind as a whole. With the overcoming of the purely inter-State dimension of the discipline of the past, international legal personality has expanded, so as to encompass nowadays, besides States and international organizations, also peoples, individuals and humankind as subjects of International Law. The growing consciousness of the need to pursue universally-shared values has brought about a fundamental change in the outlook of International Law in the last decades, drawing closer attention to its foundations and, parallel to its formal sources, to its material source (the universal juridical conscience). He examines the conceptual constructions of this new International Law and identifies basic considerations of humanity permeating its whole corpus juris, disclosing the current processes of its humanization and universalization. Finally, he addresses the construction of the international rule of law, acknowledging the need and quest for international compulsory jurisdiction, in the move towards a new jus gentium, the International Law for humankind.
This volume is an updated and revised version of the General Course on Public International Law delivered by the Author at The Hague Academy of International Law in 2005.
Monday, August 9, 2010
- David Landau, Political Institutions and Judicial Role in Comparative Constitutional Law
- Timothy Meyer, Power, Exit Costs, and Renegotiation in International Law
- Jeswald W. Salacuse, The Emerging Global Regime for Investment
- Arnulf Becker Lorca, Universal International Law: Nineteenth-Century Histories of Imposition and Appropriation
- Guobin Zhu, Prosecuting “Evil Cults”: A Critical Examination of Law Regarding Freedom of Religious Belief in Mainland China
- Sylvie Langlaude, The Rights of Religious Associations to External Relations: A Comparative Study of the OSCE and the Council of Europe
- Patricia Goedde, Legal Mobilization for Human Rights Protection in North Korea: Furthering Discourse or Discord?
- Emma Gilligan, The Human Rights Ombudsman in Russia: The Evolution of Horizontal Accountability
- Michael K. Addo, Practice of United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies in the Reconciliation of Cultural Diversity with Universal Respect for Human Rights
- Michael L. Penn & Aditi Malik, The Protection and Development of the Human Spirit: An Expanded Focus for Human Rights Discourse
- Michael Ashley Stein & Janet E. Lord, Monitoring the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Innovations, Lost Opportunities, and Future Potential
- Thomas Pegram, Diffusion Across Political Systems: The Global Spread of National Human Rights Institutions
This book provides a comprehensive, dispassionate empirical analysis and assessment of the discernible impact that the US has had upon the jus ad bellum in the post-Cold War era. The work focuses on the substantive areas of the jus ad bellum with which the US has most often and significantly engaged with through either its actions, justifications for actions, or adopted policies. In doing so, it draws upon the theory of interpretive communities as its framework of analysis in order to gauge any impact upon this fundamental area of international law.
- Jean-Denis Mouton, Réflexions sur la nature de l'Union européenne à partir de l'arrêt Rottmann (CJUE, 2 mars 2010, aff. C-135/08)
- Rémi Bachand, Les affaires arbitrales internationales concernant l'Argentine : enjeux pour la gouvernance globale
- Imad Khillo, La France dans la lutte contre les atteintes à caractère sexuel à l'encontre des enfants : de la proclamation à l'effectivité
- Irène Couzigou, L'incidence du droit à la vie sur le droit à un procès équitable dans la jurisprudence du Comité des droits de l'homme
- Jérôme Benzimra-Hazan, Retours sur quelques aspects internationaux de la liberté syndicale
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Neumayer: Do Governments Mean Business When They Derogate? Human Rights Violations During Declared States of Emergency
Whether international human rights treaties constrain the behavior of governments is a hotly contested issue that has drawn much recent scholarly attention. The possibility to derogate from some of the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) during declared states of emergency, but not from other rights, provides a hitherto unexplored test case for this research question. If governments continue to observe non-derogable rights during periods of declared emergencies then this can be interpreted as evidence that the ICCPR affects governmental behavior. I analyze the effect of derogations on specific individual human rights as well as on two aggregate rights measures during the period 1981 to 2007. I find that regime type matters: autocracies step up violation of most human rights covered by the ICCPR, whereas democracies do not, with the exception of the right to electoral self-determination. Moreover, I find some evidence that autocracies also increasingly violate non-derogable rights. This result corroborates previous findings that international human rights treaties appear to matter least where, as in autocracies, a constraining effect would be needed most.