Emergence of the modern science of international law in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is usually attributed to Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and other “founders of international law.” Based on the belief that “all seventeenth and eighteenth-century writers of international law had their own particular political context in mind when writing about the law of nations,” this book sheds light on some worldly aspect of the early writers of the law of nations (i.e., the former name for international law). Studied here are the writings of seven German court councilors, namely, Samuel Rachel (Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Hannover), Adam Friedrich Glafey (Saxony), Johann Adam Ickstatt (Würzburg-Bamberg), Samuel von Cocceji (Prussia), Johann Jacob Moser (Würtemberg and Hessen-Homburg) and Emer de Vattel (Saxony).
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Ever since the birth of the modern nation-state at the Peace of Westphalia, the essential lodestars for governments have been sovereignty (including of a monopoly over the use of force) and territorial integrity. Given how elemental sovereignty and territorial integrity are to states, why would a government ever willingly disintegrate or give up its sovereignty to unite with another state as the junior partner?
Despite such a considerable intellectual barrier, modern history features many examples of states that have either broken apart voluntarily or merged into others. In Unifying States, international relations scholar Joseph Parent focuses on the latter phenomenon: voluntary unions. As he stresses, they occur rarely, but they do in fact happen. Indeed, the most famous example is the United States itself, in the Articles of Confederation era. Neither constructivists nor liberals, both of whom stress the positive benefits of economic convergence, can explain why union occurs so rarely. Nor can realists--who hold that in an anarchic world order, states must prize their autonomy above all else--explain why states enter into larger unions that erode their sovereignty. Parent begins from a realist perspective, yet realizes that traditional realist theory cannot account for this very real phenomenon. Instead, he contends that voluntary unions can--and do--occur in extreme circumstances. When states are painted into the same corner by events, they can balance against a threatening power by uniting with each other. Parent applies his thesis to a series of important historical cases--passage of the US Constitution, Swiss unification, the semi-merger of Sweden and Norway, and Bolivar's failed attempt to unite 'Gran Colombia'--before examining the grandest unification effort ever, the European Union. After explaining how this happened, Parent utilizes his theory to show the limits that the EU now faces as it struggles to extend the scope of unification. In sum, Uniting States is an authoritative account of a historical phenomenon that scholars have been unable to adequately explain via the main schools of international relations thought.
- Christopher A. Ford, Introduction: Rethinking Armed Conflict in an Age of Terrorism
- Ariel Zemach, The Law that Turned Against Its Drafters: Guerrilla-Combatants and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions
- Jeremy Rabkin, The Strange Pretensions of Contemporary Humanitarian Law
- Steven David, Targeted Killing: The Israeli Experience
- Yuval Shany, Guarding the Guards in the War on Terrorism
- John H. Shenefield, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Puzzle: We Know How We Got Here—Now, What Do We Do?
- Amichai Cohen, Terrorism-related Adjudication
- Elizabeth Samson, Necessity, Proportionality, and the Distinction in Non-Traditional Conflicts: The Unfortunate Case Study of the Goldstone Report
- Juan Carlos Gomez Ramirez, Confronting Terrorism: Human Rights Law, or the Law of War?
- Christopher A. Ford, Living in the 'New Normal': Modern War, Nonstate Actors, and the Future of Law
- Amichai Cohen, Some Conclusions and Thoughts for the Future
Between the Second World War and the early 1970s, political leaders, activists, citizens, protestors. and freedom fighters triggered a human rights revolution in world affairs. Stimulated particularly by the horrors of the crimes against humanity in the 1940s, the human rights revolution grew rapidly to subsume claims from minorities, women, the politically oppressed, and marginal communities across the globe. The human rights revolution began with a disarmingly simple idea: that every individual, whatever his or her nationality, political beliefs, or ethnic and religious heritage, possesses an inviolable right to be treated with dignity. From this basic claim grew many more, and ever since, the cascading effect of these initial rights claims has dramatically shaped world history down to our own times.
The contributors to this volume look at the wave of human rights legislation emerging out of World War II, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Nuremberg trial, and the Geneva Conventions, and the expansion of human rights activity in the 1970s and beyond, including the anti-torture campaigns of Amnesty International, human rights politics in Indonesia and East Timor, the emergence of a human rights agenda among international scientists, and the global campaign female genital mutilation. The book concludes with a look at the UN Declaration at its 60th anniversary. Bringing together renowned senior scholars with a new generation of international historians, these essays set an ambitious agenda for the history of human rights.
- Charles E. Joern & Daniel L. Kiselbach, New Consumer Product Safety Laws in Canada and the United States: Business on the Border
- Patricio Diaz Gavier & Fernando Pierola, Related Parties and Customs Valuation: Guidance Derived from the Panel Report Thailand-Cigarettes
- James J. Nedumpara, Antidumping Proceedings and ‘Zeroing’ Practices: Have We Entered the Endgame?
- Nathan Cunningham & Junlei Peng, WTO Case Analysis, Suggestions and Impacts: China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials
- Michael G. McManus, The Domestic Industry Requirement of Section 337 at the US International Trade Commission
Le présent ouvrage est le fruit d’une table ronde organisée en décembre 2009 à l’Institut international des droits de l’homme dans le cadre des cérémonies célébrant son quarantième anniversaire. Partant du constat de la multiplication des juridictions internationales accessibles aux individus s’estimant victimes d’une violation de leurs droits et libertés fondamentaux, cette étude aspire à mettre en lumière l’attitude adoptée par les Cours internationales face à la possibilité du « forum shopping » ou de la multiplication des voies de droit ouvertes aux requérants.
Si la multiplicité des prétoires comporte des avantages tels qu’un accès accru à la justice internationale pour les victimes, elle emporte cependant le risque d’une jurisprudence « disparate », d’une mise en oeuvre de stratégies contentieuses et, in fine, d’une interprétation conventionnelle dont la cohérence pourrait, à terme, être remise en cause. A travers leur texte de base et leur jurisprudence respectifs, les organes juridictionnels internationaux tentent d’encadrer leurs relations mutuelles, contribuant ainsi à faire du risque de fragmentation du droit un outil d’enrichissement mutuel.
Reposant sur l’étude des mécanismes instaurés au plan européen, interaméricain et africain, par les organes conventionnels des Nations Unies, ainsi que par les juridictions des États-Unis en application de l’Alien Tort Statute, les contributions éclairent les enjeux actuels et les solutions retenues en matière de litispendance internationale.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
There is a broad consensus among scholars that the idea of human rights was a product of the Enlightenment but that a self-conscious and broad-based human rights movement focused on international law only began after World War II. In this narrative, the nineteenth century's absence is conspicuous--few have considered that era seriously, much less written books on it. But as Jenny Martinez shows in this novel interpretation of the roots of human rights law, the foundation of the movement that we know today was a product of one of the nineteenth century's central moral causes: the movement to ban the international slave trade. Originating in England in the late eighteenth century, abolitionism achieved remarkable success over the course of the nineteenth century. Martinez focuses in particular on the international admiralty courts, which tried the crews of captured slave ships. The courts, which were based in the Caribbean, West Africa, Cape Town, and Brazil, helped free at least 80,000 Africans from captured slavers between 1807 and 1871. Here then, buried in the dusty archives of admiralty courts, ships' logs, and the British foreign office, are the foundations of contemporary human rights law: international courts targeting states and non-state transnational actors while working on behalf the world's most persecuted peoples--captured West Africans bound for the slave plantations of the Americas. Fueled by a powerful thesis and novel evidence, Martinez's work will reshape the fields of human rights history and international human rights law.
- Volume 346
- Mariko Kawano, The Role of Judicial Procedures in the Process of the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
- Volume 348
- M. Bogdan, Private International Law as Component of the Law of the Forum. General Course on Private International Law
- R. Baratta, La reconnaissance internationale des situations juridiques personnelles et familiales
- Première partie : Secret et transparence, approche onusienne
- Daniele Ganser, Stop Lying: Why the United Nations must Fail if Member States Mislead the Security Council. A Case Study of the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis
- Simon Chesterman, "The United Nations has no Intelligence"
- Hélène Tudela, L'enregistrement et la publication des traités conclus par les organisations internationales
- Deuxième partie : Secret et transparence, études sectorielles
- Thomas Deleuil, La confidentialité des enquêtes et des poursuites devant la Cour pénale internationale et l'action du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies
- Mamoud Zani, La notion de secret à la lumière de la procédure 1503 du Conseil économique et social de l'ONU
- James Harrison, Recent Developments to Promote Transparency and Public Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Ian Blackshaw, Settling International Trade Secrets Disputes through the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization
- Troisième partie : Secret et transparence, approche étatique
- Sudha Setty, No Place for Secrets: Balancing National Security Interests and the Need for Transparency of the Law
- Steven D. Schwinn, State Secrets, Open Justice, and the Criss-crossing Evolution of Privilege in the United States and United Kingdom
- Bernard Hanotiau, Consent to Arbitration: Do We Share a Common Vision?
- Stephen M. Schwebel, Is Neer Far From Fair and Equitable?
- Philomena Cleobury & Christopher Style, Jivraj v. Hashwani: Public Interest and Party Autonomy
- Elliot Friedman, Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards in New York – If You Take Them There, You Can Collect from Anywhere
- Massimo V. Benedettelli, ‘Communitarization’ of International Arbitration: A New Spectre Haunting Europe?
- Andrew D. Mitchell & Sebastian M. Wurzberger, Boxed In? Australia’s Plain Tobacco Packaging Initiative and International Investment Law
- Andrew Tweeddale, Arbitration under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and Enforcement of an Award
Call for Submissions
Deadline for Submissions: January 17th, 2012
The Journal of International Law and International Relations (JILIR) invites submissions from scholars of International Law and/or International Relations for its Spring 2012 issue. The Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that seeks to develop interdisciplinary discourse at the nexus of these two dynamic disciplines.
JILIR welcomes submissions on the wide variety of topics in the intellectual space jointly occupied by International Law and International Relations. In addition to accepting scholarly research articles, JILIR has renewed acceptance of book reviews.
Please send submissions to email@example.com, as attachments in Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format, with the author’s name removed from the document for the purposes of anonymous review. Please include the author’s full contact information (name, institutional affiliation, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address) in the body of the e-mail. JILIR prefers articles under 20,000 words in length (the equivalent of 40 journal pages) including text and footnotes. JILIR will not publish articles exceeding 30,000 words (the equivalent of 60 journal pages) except in extraordinary circumstances.
Book reviews should be insightful, critical reviews of recent manuscripts in either discipline, between 750 and 1,500 words (including quotations).
Submissions must be received by January 17, 2012 to be considered for publication.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
- G. Andreone & G. Cataldi, Regards sur les évolutions du droit de la mer en Méditerranée
- S. Szurek, La composition des juridictions internationales permanentes : de nouvelles exigences de qualité et de représentativité
- I. Moulier, La crise dans la péninsule coréenne et ses répercussions internes et internationales
- M. Didat, Le consul honoraire : parent pauvre du droit international ?
- C. Bories, La convention du patrimoine mondial à l’aube de son 40e anniversaire : un colosse aux pieds d’argile ?
- G. Giraudeau, Les compétences internationales des entités territoriales autonomes
- S. Garibian, Le recours au droit international pour la répression des crimes du passé : Regards croisés sur les affaires Touvier (France) et Simón (Argentine)
- W. Czaplinski, L’immunité de l’État devant la Cour suprême polonaise : l’affaire Natoniewski
Rathbun: Trust in International Cooperation: International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics and American Multilateralism
Trust in International Cooperation challenges conventional wisdoms concerning the part which trust plays in international cooperation and the origins of American multilateralism. Brian C. Rathbun questions rational institutionalist arguments, demonstrating that trust precedes rather than follows the creation of international organizations. Drawing on social psychology, he shows that individuals placed in the same structural circumstances show markedly different propensities to cooperate based on their beliefs about the trustworthiness of others. Linking this finding to political psychology, Rathbun explains why liberals generally pursue a more multilateral foreign policy than conservatives, evident in the Democratic Party's greater support for a genuinely multilateral League of Nations, United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Rathbun argues that the post-World War Two bipartisan consensus on multilateralism is a myth, and differences between the parties are growing continually starker.
Ikenberry, Mastanduno, & Wohlforth: International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity
The end of the Cold War and subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in a new unipolar international system that presented fresh challenges to international relations theory. Since the Enlightenment, scholars have speculated that patterns of cooperation and conflict might be systematically related to the manner in which power is distributed among states. Most of what we know about this relationship, however, is based on European experiences between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, when five or more powerful states dominated international relations, and the latter twentieth century, when two superpowers did so. Building on a highly successful special issue of the leading journal World Politics, this book seeks to determine whether what we think we know about power and patterns of state behaviour applies to the current 'unipolar' setting and, if not, how core theoretical propositions about interstate interactions need to be revised.
The immunity of foreign officials from legal proceedings in U.S. courts has drawn significant attention from scholars, advocates, and judges in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S.Ct. 2278 (2010), which held that foreign official immunity is governed by the common law rather than the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The common law of foreign official immunity, which the Samantar Court did not define, operates at the intersection of international law and domestic law, and it implicates the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. Conflicting visions of the substance and process of common law immunity have already emerged in the wake of the Samantar opinion, and will continue to compete until the Supreme Court revisits this issue in a future case. At stake is not only the ability of suits to proceed against foreign officials, but also the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary in matters affecting foreign affairs.
The original research presented in this Article yields two striking observations. First, a claim that the defendant acted in his official capacity did not operate as an automatic barrier to adjudication on the merits; foreign officials who were neither diplomatic officials nor heads of state were “on the same footing” as any other foreigner with respect to their “suability.” Second, the Executive believed that it did not have constitutional authority to instruct a court to dismiss a private suit on immunity grounds. Although twenty-first century advocates might make policy arguments for blanket immunity or absolute Executive discretion, such choices are not consistent with — let alone compelled by — the eighteenth-century practices and understandings recovered here.
How is the United States able to control the IMF with only 17 per cent of the votes? How are the rules of the global economy made? This book shows how a combination of formal and informal rules explains how international organizations really work. Randall W. Stone argues that formal rules apply in ordinary times, while informal power allows leading states to exert control when the stakes are high. International organizations are therefore best understood as equilibrium outcomes that balance the power and interests of the leading state and the member countries. Presenting a new model of institutional design and comparing the IMF, WTO, and EU, Stone argues that institutional variations reflect the distribution of power and interests. He shows that US interests influence the size, terms, and enforcement of IMF programs, and new data, archival documents, and interviews reveal the shortcomings of IMF programs in Mexico, Russia, Korea, Indonesia, and Argentina.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme fait incontestablement partie des grandes réussites juridiques européennes. En 60 ans, elle aura réussi à faire oublier les conditions éminemment (géo)politiques de sa naissance, à étendre son emprise de 15 à 47 pays européens, et à développer des concepts et des techniques jurisprudentiels propres au droit européen des droits de l’homme. Surtout, elle aura joué un rôle central dans l’affirmation de l’existence d’un droit autonome des droits de l’homme. Une telle réussite n’est pas imputable à la seule jurisprudence européenne mais elle a aussi partie liée avec un projet savant. Plutôt que de revenir sur la jurisprudence européenne ou les jurisprudences nationales relatives au droit de la CEDH, c’est sur ce projet savant que le présent ouvrage se propose d’opérer un retour réflexif : qui en sont les auteurs ? Quelle en est l’histoire ? Quelles en sont les principales caractéristiques ? On s’intéressera en particulier à un aspect de ce projet savant : son attachement à affirmer la dimension « constitutionnelle » de la Convention européenne comme de la Cour de Strasbourg. Cherchant à cerner le sens alors accordé au paradigme de la « constitutionnalisation » (ou à dévoiler le rôle central de l’ambiguïté maintenue de l’expression), l’ouvrage propose ici une mise en perspective critique en l’interrogeant depuis d’autres points de vue où il prospère aussi, notamment le droit international, le droit constitutionnel, le droit communautaire et la science politique.
Jeangène Vilmer: Pas de paix sans justice ? Le dilemme de la paix et de la justice en sortie de conflit armé
En sortie de conflit armé, faut-il poursuivre ceux qui ont commis des crimes de guerre, des crimes contre l'humanité, voire un génocide, ou les intégrer au processus de transition au nom de la paix ? Les poursuivre risque de déstabiliser la société ; mais ne pas le faire peut mener au même résultat, une paix achetée par l'impunité risquant d'être provisoire.
L'auteur examine ce dilemme à la lumière de l’histoire du droit pénal international, de Nuremberg à nos jours, et à l’aide de nombreux exemples, des Balkans à la Libye en passant par le Rwanda et le Darfour. Il s’interroge sur le rôle des tribunaux internationaux : sont-ils une condition de la paix (pas de paix sans justice) ou au contraire un obstacle (pas de justice sans paix) ? Ont-ils un effet dissuasif ? Peut-on dépasser le dilemme ? Se pose aussi la question des relations qu’entretiennent deux acteurs majeurs de la scène internationale : le Conseil de sécurité, organe politique chargé du maintien de la paix et de la sécurité, et la Cour pénale internationale, organe judiciaire chargé de poursuivre les auteurs des crimes les plus graves. La Cour pénale internationale est-elle vraiment indépendante du Conseil de sécurité et, surtout, doit-elle l’être ?
Une réflexion essentielle, en ce début de siècle, face au retour des guerres.
La société mondiale est devenue aujourd’hui une société postcoloniale et post-guerre froide. Ces deux circonstances expliquent qu’elle soit traversée par deux grands types d’injustices que Nancy Fraser avaient identifiés pour les sociétés internes.
D’une part, elle connaît des disparités économiques et sociales entre Etats qui ont donné lieu à des revendications très fortes dès les années 1950 avec les premières décolonisations. Ces inégalités, auxquelles participent désormais certains grands Etats émergents, demeurent criantes aujourd’hui et posent toujours le problème de l’écart entre égalité formelle et égalité réelle. D’autre part, elle est de plus en plus confrontée à des revendications d’ordre culturel et identitaire qui instaurent cette fois-ci une tension entre égalité et différence. Les Etats défavorisés, ceux qui se sentent stigmatisés, mais aussi les peuples autochtones, les ethnies, les minorités, les femmes aspirent aujourd’hui à la reconnaissance de leur égale dignité mais aussi de leurs identités et de leurs droits spécifiques ou même, pour certains, à la réparation des injustices nées de la violation de leurs identités et la confiscation de leurs biens ou de leurs terres.
Or, pour répondre à ces deux types de revendications, les sujets de la société internationale ont élaboré deux types de remèdes traduits en règles juridiques : le droit relatif au développement et le droit relatif à la reconnaissance. Ces deux droits ne sont pas des branches juridiques parfaitement autonomes et individualisées ni des ensembles de règles formalisés, ils sont imparfaits et suscitent de réelles difficultés en raison de leurs dark side, mais ils peuvent néanmoins être interprétés comme instaurant les premiers jalons de ce que pourrait être une société internationale plus juste qui soit à la fois équitable (réponse aux injustices socio-économiques) et décente (réponse aux injustices culturelles).
L’objectif de ce livre est à la fois de mettre en exergue une telle évolution et de la questionner en la remettant dans sa perspective historique et en la soumettant à une analyse critique de ses présupposés et de ses implications.
Existing international law is capable to govern the war on terror also in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The standards generally applicable to targeted killings are those of human rights law. Force may be used in order to address immediate threats, preventive killings are permitted under strict preconditions but targeted killings are prohibited. In the context of armed conflicts, these standards are complemented by international humanitarian law as lex specialis. Civilians may only be targeted while directly taking part in hostilities and posing a threat to the adversary. Also in Israel and the Occupied Territory, these standards apply. Contrary to the Israeli Supreme Court 's view, international humanitarian law is not complemented by human rights law, but human rights law is to some degree complemented by international humanitarian law. According to these standards, many killings which would be legal according to the Israeli Supreme Court violate international law.
- Luca G Radicati di Brozolo, Arbitration and the Draft Revised Brussels I Regulation: Seeds of Home Country Control and of Harmonisation?
- Jerca Kramberger Škerl, European Public Policy (with an Emphasis on Exequatur Proceedings)
- José Antonio Moreno Rodriguez & María Mercedes Albornoz, Reflections on the Mexico Convention in the Context of the Preparation of the Future Hague Instrument on International Contracts
- Matthias Lehmann, Where Does Economic Loss Occur?
- Carmen Otero García-Castrillón, International Litigation Trends in Environmental Liability: A European Union–United States Comparative Perspective
- Sophie Neumann, Intellectual Property Rights Infringements in European Private International Law: Meeting the Requirements of Territoriality and Private International Law
- Thalia Kruger & Jinske Verhellen, Dual Nationality = Double Trouble?
- Katarina Trimmings & Paul Beaumont, International Surrogacy Arrangements: An Urgent Need for Legal Regulation at the International Level
With the growth of the Treaty Body System, harmonization and coordination of working methods between the treaty bodies became a pressing issue. Commentators spoke of a crisis of the system - victim of its own success. In 2002 the UN Secretary-General (‘An agenda for future’) considered that the development of the system, among others, increased pressure on resources of both States and the secretariat and had implication on the ability of the States to continue to meet their reporting obligations, while the secretariat struggled to continue to provide quality service to all treaty bodies. The UN invited States to reflect on a number of reform initiatives that could help to modernize the system. The possibility of replacing the reporting obligations owed to each of the treaty bodies, with a single report was suggested. The UN also wished that strengthening and harmonization efforts could eventually lead to a single human rights Treaty Body, which was hoped, could enhance human rights protection at national level.
These suggestions were largely unacceptable to States parties, but the concept itself of having States submitting single reports to a single human rights mechanism was tried in the new Charter-based Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the new Human Rights Council set up in 2007. While the new procedure had little impact on the challenges to the separate Treaty Body System which continued to grow, increasing the need for its modernization; it certainly reinvigorated calls for a better coordination between the different elements of the UN Human Rights Machinery to avoid duplication of efforts that strains resources and lessens impact on the real situation of the rights holders at the national level.
This prompted the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, in 2009, to give a new impetus to the discussions started almost a decade ago, by addressing a renewed call on relevant stakeholders (States, Treaty Body members, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations and academic entities) to initiate a process of reflection on ways of strengthening the Treaty Body System and by extension the UN Human Rights Protection System as a whole.
This impressive collection of essays is a response to the High Commissioner’s call, which joins initiatives by other stakeholders, from an academic perspective. The book has two parts: one presents reflections on the Treaty Body System and the second on the Human Rights Council Procedures.
Monday, December 26, 2011
- Articles on Forests and Climate Change
- Nidhi Srivastava, Changing Dynamics of Forest Regulation: Coming Full Circle?
- Ian Fry, If a Tree Falls in a Kyoto Forest and Nobody is There to Hear it, will it be Accounted for? An Insider's View of the Negotiations Surrounding Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry for the Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol
- Harro van Asselt, Integrating Biodiversity in the Climate Regime's Forest Rules: Options and Tradeoffs in Greening REDD Design
- Sophie Lemaitre, Indigenous Peoples' Land Rights and REDD: A Case Study
- Kate Dooley & Saskia Ozinga, Building on Forest Governance Reforms through FLEGT: The Best Way of Controlling Forests' Contribution to Climate Change?
- General Articles
- David R. Boyd, The Implicit Constitutional Right to Live in a Healthy Environment
- Mary Dobbs, Excluding Coexistence of GMOs? The Impact of the EU Commission's 2010 Recommendation on Coexistence
- Armelle Gouritin, The International Regime for the Compensation of Oil-pollution Damage: A Good Candidate to Have a Human Rights Law Approach?
- Case Note
- Günther Handl, Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area: The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea's Recent Contribution to International Environmental Law
Sunday, December 25, 2011
- John Morijn, Reforming United Nations Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Reform
- Athanasios Yupsanis, Cultural Property Aspects in International Law: The Case of the (Still) Inadequate Safeguarding of Indigenous Peoples' (Tangible) Cultural Heritage
- Nadia Sanchez & Joyeeta Gupta, Recent Changes in the Nile Region May Create an Opportunity for a More Equitable Sharing of the Nile River Waters
- Md. Saiful Karim, Is There an International Obligation to Prosecute Pirates?
- Jörg Kammerhofer, Begging the Question? The Kosovo Opinion and the Reformulation of Advisory Requests
Saturday, December 24, 2011
- Jacob D. Kathman, Civil War Diffusion and Regional Motivations for Intervention
- Jeannie Annan, Christopher Blattman, Dyan Mazurana, & Khristopher Carlson, Civil War, Reintegration, and Gender in Northern Uganda
- Nils W. Metternich, Expecting Elections: Interventions, Ethnic Support, and the Duration of Civil Wars
- Thomas Zeitzoff, Using Social Media to Measure Conflict Dynamics: An Application to the 2008–2009 Gaza Conflict
- Andreas Flache & Michael W. Macy, Local Convergence and Global Diversity: From Interpersonal to Social Influence
- Dustin H. Tingley & Barbara F. Walter, Can Cheap Talk Deter?: An Experimental Analysis
- Emizet F. Kisangani & Jeffrey Pickering, Democratic Accountability and Diversionary Force: Regime Types and the Use of Benevolent and Hostile Military Force
- Srividya Jandhyala, Witold J. Henisz, & Edward D. Mansfield, Three Waves of BITs: The Global Diffusion of Foreign Investment Policy
Friday, December 23, 2011
- Robert P. Barnidge, The 2008 United States-India Nuclear Co-operation Agreement and the Work of the International Law Commission on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law
- Prabhash Ranjan, Non-Precluded Measures in Indian International Investment Agreements and India's Regulatory Power as a Host Nation
- Thang Nguyen Dang, Fisheries Co-operation in the South China Sea and the (Ir)relevance of the Sovereignty Question
- Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar, Dots and Lines in the South China Sea: Insights from the Law of Map Evidence
- Mark D. Kielsgard, The Legality Principle in Sentencing at the ECCC: Making Up Law as It Goes Along?
- Andreas Schloenhardt, Fighting Organized Crime in the Asia Pacific Region: New Weapons, Lost Wars
- Dinara Ziganshina, International Water Law in Central Asia: The Nature of Substantive Norms and what Flows from It
Thursday, December 22, 2011
- JHHW, Nino – In His Own Words; In this Issue; The Last Page and Roaming Charges
- Jaye Ellis, General Principles and Comparative Law
- Thilo Rensmann, Munich Alumni and the Evolution of International Human Rights Law
- Anastasios Gourgourinis, General/Particular International Law and Primary/Secondary Rules: Unitary Terminology of a Fragmented System
- Daphné Richemond-Barak, Regulating War: A Taxonomy in Global Administrative Law
- Critical Review of International Jurisprudence
- Sonia Morano-Foadi & Stelios Andreadakis, The Convergence of the European Legal System in the Treatment of Third Country Nationals in Europe: The ECJ and ECtHR Jurisprudence
- Critical Review of International Governance
- Abigail C. Deshman, Horizontal Review between International Organizations: Why, How, and Who Cares about Corporate Regulatory Capture
- Roaming Charges Places of Worship: Piazza Duomo Milano
- EJIL: Debate!
- Roda Mushkat, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited
- Kevin Y. L. Tan, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited: A Reply to Roda Mushkat
- Roda Mushkat, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited: A Rejoinder to Kevin Tan
- Bas Schotel, Doing Justice to the Political. The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan: A Reply to Sarah Nouwen and Wouter Werner
- Sarah M. H. Nouwen & Wouter G. Werner Doing Justice to the Political: The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan: A Rejoinder to Bas Schotel
- Philip Allott, On First Understanding Plato’s Republic
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Singh: Non-Proliferation Law & Countermeasures: Their Function and Role in Determining the Status of a Special Regime
This paper examines the rhetoric of fragmentation, specifically the nuanced notion of ‘special regimes’ (as opposed to self-contained), in the context of non-proliferation law and rules relating to countermeasures. The general question which is asked and answered is: what is the extent to which non-proliferation law, and the special obligations and institutional mechanisms created by the governing treaties, enables, limits or otherwise modifies the right to resort to countermeasures under general international law? An extension of the question that Rapporteur Arangio-Ruiz asked in the ILC in 1992, this piece reviews the large of non-proliferation rules to answer three sub-questions: (a) who has standing to take countermeasures in relation to non-proliferation obligations; (b) when can a state take recourse to countermeasures under general international law, given the existence and content of special non-proliferation rules and institutional mechanisms; and (c) what countermeasures may a state take, given the nature of the regime, its practicalities and the nature of some of its obligations.
The finding of this paper is that non-proliferation law possesses distinct legal characteristics and distinct legal rules both of which impact, varyingly, on the resort to countermeasures in this area of law. First, the paper critiques the ILC’s direct and overly simplistic importation of the notion of ‘interdependent obligations’ from its work on the law of treaties, to its work on state responsibility, and specifically Article 42(b)(ii) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. This has led to a conflated understanding of which non-proliferation obligations, upon breach, enable a decentralized, third-state party, response in the form of countermeasures. The paper concludes, that under a strict reading of doctrine, only a very few substantive non-proliferation obligations, and certainly not the majority let alone the procedural and peaceful use obligations, would qualify as interdependent obligations. Accordingly, whilst non-proliferation law is traditionally considered susceptible to decentralized responses (as ample practice demonstrates), this is not consistent with a reading of the law. Second, the paper applies the Air Services Arbitration test to whether the existence of extensive institutional frameworks should condition the resort to countermeasures. It concludes that in the case of the majority of non-proliferation treaties, such frameworks and not mandatory pre-requisites. It further identifies specific obligations contained in the CWC and CTBT that govern the taking of collective countermeasures in the general interest. Finally, this section identifies specific non-proliferation rules which limit the taking of countermeasures that emerge out of the WTO regime and UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010). Third, and finally, the paper concludes that what countermeasures may be taken may be curtailed by the nature of certain non-proliferation obligations, whilst the need to liberalize current international legal doctrine may emerge from the question of urgent countermeasures in the area of non-proliferation law.
In short, the paper concludes, that despite evidence of special characteristics and special rules governing countermeasures, non-proliferation law cannot be considered a special regime. The paper does however seek to provide a pragmatic view of the way in which countermeasures may be taken, in accordance with the law, in the diverse area of non-proliferation law.
The journal has issued a call for submissions for its inaugural and posterior issues. Here's the call:
Call for Submissions for the Inaugural and Posterior Issues
The Editorial Board of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL), an open access, double-blind peer review journal based at the University of Cambridge, is pleased to announce the CJICL are now accepting submissions for both the inaugural and posterior issues.
The Board invites long articles, short articles, case notes and book review submissions that broadly engage with the themes of public and private international and comparative law, as well as EU and transnational law. The CJICL is particularly interested in work that examines the intersection of different legal regimes – domestic, regional, transnational, international – as well as cutting edge international legal scholarship.
All submissions will be double-blind peer reviewed before a final decision on publication is taken. All long articles and some short articles will be sent to our Academic Review Board, which consist of a distinguished international and comparative law scholars and practitioners. A full list can be viewed on our website www.cjicl.org.uk. All other articles, case notes and book reviews will be double-blind peer reviewed by our Editorial Board.
The closing date for submissions is the 1 February 2012. Successful authors will be notified in April 2012 as to whether they will be published in one of our two substantive issues for the year 2011-12. Manuscripts must be submitted via our website – click on ‘Submissions’ at www.cjicl.org.uk - by the closing date. Please see below for further information.
In addition to a call for submissions for the Journal, the Editorial Board would like to invite authors to submit c. 1000 word commentaries for our new online blog (available at www.cjicl.org.uk), by e-mailing them to: firstname.lastname@example.org with your name, institution and submission in a separate word (.doc) or richtext (.rtf) document.
Andrew Sanger and Rumiana Yotova
Editors in Chief of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law
Further Submission Information
The Journal accepts the following types of manuscript:
1. Long Articles between 6,000 and 10,000 words but not exceeding 12,000 words including footnotes;
2. Short Articles not exceeding 6,000 words including footnotes;
3. Case Notes including substantive analysis should be approximately 3000 words including footnotes (comparative methodologies, if applicable, are encouraged); and
4. Book Reviews not exceeding 2500 words including footnotes.
All copy must be submitted in Word (.doc) or Richtext (.rtf) format and must conform to our style guidelines, which are available on the submissions section of our website. The number of words in the text and (separately if possible) the footnotes should be stated.
Please ensure that your manuscript does not contain any reference to your personal or professional identity.
For up to date information, please see our website
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
- Peter Hilpold, Das Kosovo-Gutachten vom 22. Juli 2010: historische, politische und rechtliche Voraussetzungen
- Christian Tomuschat, Die Anerkennung von Neustaaten – Die vorzeitige Anerkennung
- Peter Hilpold, Die Sezession im Völkerrecht – Erfordert das Kosovo-Gutachten des IGH eine Neubewertung dieses Instituts?
- Stefan Oeter, Sezession, territoriale Integrität und die Rolle des Sicherheitsrates
- Matthias Niedobitek, Die OSZE und der Kosovo
- Isabel Lirola Delgado, The European Union and Kosovo in the Light of the Territorial Issue
- Michael Bothe, Grenzziehung als Instrument der Friedenssicherung – Von Palästina zum Kosovo und zurück
- Andrea Gioia, Decisions of the UN Security Council of Indefinite Duration: How to Define the Limits of Their Validity
- Helmut Philipp Aust, The Kosovo Opinion and Issues of International Responsibility
- Andrea Gattini, “You Say You´ll Change the Constitution” – The ICJ and Non–state Entities in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion
- Anne Peters, Das Kosovo-Gutachten und globaler Konstitutionalismus
- Gerhard Hafner & Nadia Kalb, Struktur und Inhalt der Stellungnahmen von Österreichs im IGH-Gutachtenverfahren zu Kosovo
Sunday, December 18, 2011
- Hugh Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 - PREFACE - Chapter I: Jurisdiction in Contentious Cases - Chapter II: Jurisdiction and Its Exercise in Advisory Proceedings: SUPPLEMENT, 2010: PARTS NINE AND TEN
- Douglas Guilfoyle, The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict
- Ilias Bantekas, The Emergence of the Intergovernmental Trust in International Law
- Ben Juratowitch, Diplomatic Protection of Shareholders
Saturday, December 17, 2011
This study, a realist interpretation of the long diplomatic record that produced the coming of World War II in 1939, is a critique of the Paris Peace Conference and reflects the judgment shared by many who left the Conference in 1919 in disgust amid predictions of future war. The critique is a rejection of the idea of collective security, which Woodrow Wilson and many others believed was a panacea, but which was also condemned as early as 1915. This book delivers a powerful lesson in treaty-making and rejects the supposition that treaties, once made, are unchangeable, whatever their faults.
Friday, December 16, 2011
- Paul Behrens, Assessment of International Criminal Evidence. The Case of the Unpredictable Génocidaire
- Matthias Klatt, Positive Obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights
- Sina van den Bogaert, Roma Segregation in Education. Direct or Indirect Discrimination?
- Henrik Wenander, Recognition of Foreign Administrative Decisions. Balancing International Cooperation, National Self-Determination, and Individual Rights
- Stellungnahmen und Berichte
- Carla M. Zoethout, The Dilemma of Constitutional Comparativism
- Martin Schaub, Zur völkerrechtlichen Zulässigkeit des amerikanischen Editionsbefehls an die UBS im Streit um die Kundendaten
Lavranos: Is an International Investor-to-State Arbitration System Under the Auspices of the ECJ Possible?
Almost two years into the Lisbon Treaty, it has by now become general knowledge that the EU has obtained explicit exclusive external competence in the area of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) (Article 207 (1) TFEU). This transfer of competence from the Member States to the EU has created a host of major problems and raised many complex legal, institutional, economic and political questions, which will keep many of us busy for a long time.
Suffice to mention the still unresolved faith of existing extra-EU and intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) of the Member States, the lack of definition of what FDI actually encompasses, and more generally, the lack of a clear delineation of the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States with regard to FDI. More fundamentally, it remains to be seen how the European Parliament (EP) is going to use its new co-legislative powers concerning FDI in order to introduce non-trade concerns into this policy field. This list could of course be extended much further, but this contribution will leave these issues aside. Instead, I will merely try to answer the simple but very relevant question of whether, and if so, to what extent an international investor-to-state arbitration system under the auspices of the ECJ is at all possible.
Since the Treaties do not contain an outright – positive or negative – answer, one must turn to the jurisprudence of the ECJ. So far, the ECJ has not explicitly and directly addressed this question either. However, the ECJ has in the past issued several related Opinions and rendered many relevant judgments, which – taken together – should provide for a sufficient basis in order to answer the question to an extent that goes beyond mere speculation.
In the first place, the ECJ has made its views known as to the conditions and limitations of establishing and using international arbitration dispute settlement systems for resolving disputes between EU Member States.
In the second place, and most recently in Opinion 1/09 , the ECJ has quite clearly explained the limits for establishing an international court system for resolving disputes between private parties.
Thus, whereas the ECJ has not yet directly addressed the for our purposes relevant configuration of investor-to-(Member)state dispute settlement system within the European legal order, the approaches taken so far by the ECJ concerning Member State-to-Member State dispute resolution and dispute resolution between private parties, provide clear indications of how the ECJ would determine the question of allowing an investor-to-state arbitration dispute settlement system within the European legal order.
In other words, by using the detour of relying in analogy on the existing ECJ jurisprudence, an attempt is made to extrapolate the position the ECJ is likely to take for the configuration of investor-to-state arbitration.
The starting point of the subsequent analysis will thus be Opinion 1/09, enriched by other relevant Opinions and judgments such as Opinion 1/91 and MOX plant . The working hypothesis for this contribution is that the EU is competent to conclude - together with the Member States - comprehensive FTAs that include investment chapters as well as stand-alone EU BITs as mixed agreements.
Furthermore, it is assumed that such FTAs and EU BITs will contain full-fledged international investor-to-state arbitration rules or systems that are comparable to what is currently the best practice of the Member States’ BITs.
The analysis will proceed by first shortly recalling the main reasons for including investor-to-state arbitration systems in practically all BITs. After having thus established the rationale and functioning of such systems in international (investment) law, the analysis will turn towards the situation within the EU, in particular as determined by the jurisprudence of the ECJ. Finally, some concluding remarks will wrap up this contribution.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) sets the guidelines for world-wide regulation of banks. It is the forum for agreeing international regulation on the conduct of banking. Based on special access to the archives of the BCBS and interviews with many of its key players, this book tells the story of the early years of the Committee from its foundation in 1974/5 right through until 1997 – the year that marks the watershed between the Basel I Accord on Capital Adequacy and the start of work on Basel II. In addition, the book covers the Concordat, the Market Risk Amendment, the Core Principles of Banking and all other facets of the work of the BCBS. While the book is primarily a record of the history of the BCBS, it also provides an assessment of its actions and efficacy. It is a major contribution to the historical record on banking supervision.
- Eric Loquin, Retour dépassionné sur l’arrêt INSERM c/ Fondation Leeten F. Saugstad (Tribunal des conflits, 17 mai 2010)
- Thomas Schultz & David Holloway, Retour sur la comity (Première partie)
- Jonathan Mattou, Le Bribery Act ou les choix de la loi britannique en matière de lutte contre la corruption - Un danger pour les entreprises françaises ?
- David Ruzié, À propos de la notion d’expectative légitime des agents d’une organisation internationale
- Valérie Pironon, Dits et non-dits sur la méthode de la focalisation dans le contentieux - contractuel et délictuel - du commerce électronique
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Contemporary reality is confoundingly complex: it is marked by rapidly evolving technologies, increasing global interconnectedness, rising population, and deepening understanding of science and the environment. New international actors; changes in social, economic, and political dynamics; a multipolar power structure; and novel security threats only add to the complexity. Amidst this confusion, international law can be a source of order and clarity. It can provide frameworks to peacefully resolve disputes, regulate relations between different actors, and clarify rights and obligations. It can foster technological development and facilitate exchanges of knowledge and goods. It is no surprise that managing global financial crises, protecting global commons, responding to conflicts spilling across borders, and guaranteeing public health and safety have all been added to international law’s purview. In our crowded, connected world, civil uprisings, financial collapses, natural and human-caused disasters are no longer domestic crises: they are global crises.
While international law has at times been quite creative in response to these problems, whether it is fully up to the task remains an open question. International law can actually exacerbate complexity with conflicting or unclear rules, uncertain enforcement, and overlapping and competing jurisdiction. International law must demonstrate the flexibility to embrace new issues, to look beyond the State, and to integrate new players (who may not follow its rules). Transparency, accountability, and participation must be guaranteed in new private regulatory regimes, shorn from State control. The instruments and processes of international law must provide means for scientific evidence to be sifted, understood, and translated into law. And yet, even as it adapts, international law must also remain a force for stability and predictability.
Which problems is international law particularly well-suited to solve? Which seem to defy its regulation? What tools does international law have to manage this complexity? Where are best practices emerging? What has our profession learned in the last half-century? Is law, with its emphasis on rules and stability, conceptually and functionally capable of responding to the challenges of complexity? If not, how should law react? What do experts from outside the legal profession, from technology, finance, counterinsurgency, climate science, and risk, believe law can add? During the 2012 ASIL Annual Meeting we will address these questions and discuss how international law responds to complexity.
- Nathalie Voser, Overview of the Most Important Changes in the Revised ICC Arbitration Rules
- Annex: Article Numbers of the 2012 ICC Rules as Compared to the Article Numbers of the 1998 ICC Rules
- Simon Gabriel, Dealing With “Challenged Documents”
- Walid Ben Hamida, L’arbitrage et le nouveau contexte politique en Tunisie
- P. Gerber, A. Gargett, & M. Castan, Does the Right to Birth Registration Include a Right to a Birth Certificate?
- R. Kicker, M. Möstl, & E. Lantschner, Reforming the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms
- T. Soboka Bulto, Towards Rights-Duties Congruence: Extraterritorial Application of the Human Right to Water in the African Human Rights system
- Charlotte Wilhelm, Die Rechtsbehelfe des Käufers bei Nichterfüllung nach dem Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Verordnung über ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht (KOM (2011) 635 endg.)
- Dossier spécial : Le panel d'inspection de la banque mondiale à l'âge de la maturité. Quelques éléments d'évaluation
- P. Klein, Introduction
- J. Spanoudis, L'accès des individus au panel d'inspection : faux semblant ou réalité ?
- G. Dusepulchre, Le panel d'inspection jouit-il de l'indépendance nécessaire pour contrôler les agissements de la Banque mondiale ?
- R. Gallert, L'accountability, un concept adapté aux organisations internationales ?
- M. Alie, Spécificité de la procédure devant la Cour pénale internationale : Analyses et réflexions relatives à la place préliminaire du procès verbal
- M. Flakowska, L'interaction entre la Cour pénale internationale et le Conseil de sécurité en matière d'agression à l'issue de la Conférence de révision du Statut de Rome
- A.C. Hatton, R. Ouellet, & L. Letourneau, Du rôle de la genèse dans l'exégèse : pour une interprétation historiquement éclairée de l'exception de moralité publique du GATT
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Non-state actors, including terrorist groups, regularly launch attacks against states, often from external bases. When a victim state seeks to respond with force to those attacks, it must decide whether to use force on the territory of another state with which it may not be in conflict. International law traditionally requires the victim state to assess whether the territorial state is "unwilling or unable" to suppress the threat itself. Only if the territorial state is unwilling or unable to do so may the victim state lawfully use force. Yet there has been virtually no discussion, either by states or scholars, of what that test requires. The test's lack of content undercuts its legitimacy and suggests that it is not currently imposing effective limits on the use of force by states at a time when trans-national armed violence is pervasive.
This Article provides the first sustained descriptive and normative analysis of the test. Descriptively, it explains how the "unwilling or unable" test arises in international law as part of a state's inquiry into whether it is necessary to use force in response to an armed attack. It identifies the test's deep roots in neutrality law, while simultaneously illustrating the lack of guidance about what inquiries a victim state must undertake when assessing whether another state is "unwilling or unable" to address a particular threat. Normatively, the Article plumbs two centuries of state practice to propose a core set of substantive and procedural factors that should inform the "unwilling or unable" inquiry. It then applies those factors to a real-world example – Colombia's use of force in Ecuador in 2008 against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – to explore how the use of these factors would affect the involved states' decision-making and the evaluation by other states of the action's legality. The Article argues that the use of these factors would improve the quality of state decision-making surrounding the use of force in important substantive and procedural ways.
Liste: Völkerrecht-Sprechen: Die Konstruktion demokratischer Völkerrechtspolitik in den USA und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Wenn Demokratien in den Krieg ziehen, wissen Sie das Recht auf ihrer Seite. Gleiches gilt, wenn sie den Krieg verurteilen. Doch was ist, wenn Demokratien unterschiedliche Rechtspositionen zu ein und demselben Krieg beziehen?
Der Autor zeigt, wie sich die Positionen in den Zentren politischer Macht selbst in Fragen der völkerrechtlichen Haltung zu Ereignissen wie dem Irakkrieg nicht mehr isoliert von ihrer gesellschaftlichen Umwelt bestimmen lassen. Über das zunehmend auch in den öffentlichen Diskursen der Medien konstruierte Verhältnis von Politik, Recht und Demokratie werden Felder gesellschaftlichen Sinns erzeugt, die sich bei der Formulierung völkerrechtlicher Positionen nicht ignorieren lassen und durch Regierungen oft nicht ignoriert werden. Dennoch variieren die Muster der hergestellten Bezüge zwischen Völkerrecht und dem jeweiligen demokratischen Selbstverständnis ganz erheblich, wie die Arbeit in einem Vergleich deutscher und US-amerikanischer Diskurse verdeutlicht. Zu den contra-intuitiven Ergebnissen gehört die Einschätzung, dass die Deutschen als Demokraten womöglich die besseren Völkerrechtler sind, aber die Amerikaner als Völkerrechtler die besseren Demokraten.
Conventional wisdom holds that the creation of international, court-like institutions helps countries to peacefully settle trade conflicts, thereby enhancing overall welfare. Others, however, point out that these institutions remain ultimately ineffective, because they merely reflect the distribution of power in the anarchic international system. We explore how litigation in the WTO affects bilateral trade between countries involved in a trade dispute. We find that sectoral exports from complainant countries to the defendant increase by about $9.5 billion in the three years after a panel ruling. However, countries that have proactively filed a complaint and carried the main costs of litigation do not systematically gain more than less active third parties that merely joined an existing WTO dispute and carried smaller litigation costs. We conclude that international judicial institutions create incentives for freeriding, but at the same time may lead to a less power-based distribution of the gains from trade.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
- Fabio Leonardi, The Sky is Not the Limit: A Review of U.S. Space Transportation Law from a WTO Perspective
- Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, The Legality of Economic Sanctions under International Law and EU Law: The Case of Iran
- Francesco Seatzu, Towards a Mediterranean Development Bank?
- Amrita, Making WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Work for Developing Countries: Designing the Strategy of Public-Private Partnership
- R. Trequattrini, S. Manfredi & Dott. F. Nappo, The Administration of Big Companies in State of Insolvency: The Italian Framework
- Navajyoti Samanta, Did GATS Cause the Financial Crisis of 2007?
- Neeti Shikha, The Changing Trend of Schemes of Arrangement and Approaches towards its Efficacy
- Roda Mushkat, State Reputation and Compliance with International Law: Looking through a Chinese Lens
- Sienho Yee, The Presidency of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the "National State Extension" Concern
- Dire Tladi & Gillian Taylor, On the Al Qaida/Taliban Sanctions Regime: Due Process and Sunsetting
- Nils Goeteyn & Frank Maes, Compliance Mechanisms in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: An Effective Way to Improve Compliance?
- Juan He, Developing Countries' Pursuit of an Intellectual Property Law Balance under the WTO TRIPS Agreement
- Notes on Courts and Tribunals
- Philippe Gautier, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Activities in 2010
- Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, The Impact of National Law and Courts on International Commercial Arbitration: Mythology, Physiology, Pathology, Remedies and Trends
- Stéphanie Bellier, À propos de juridictions internationales statuant à titre arbitral
- Luiz Olavo Baptista & Sílvia Julio Bueno de Miranda, Arbitration Agreement and Choice-of-Law Clause: A Brazilian Law Perspective
- Christian Joerges, Poul F. Kjaer, & Tommi Ralli, A New Type of Conflicts Law as Constitutional Form in the Postnational Constellation
- Agustín José Menéndez, United They Diverge? From Conflicts of Law to Constitutional Theory
- Florian Rödl, Democratic Juridification Without Statisation: Law of Conflict of Laws Instead of a World State
- Marc Amstutz, The Opium of Democracy: A Comment on Florian Rödl's Theory of Democratic Juridification without Statisation
- Poul F. Kjaer, The Political Foundations of Conflicts Law
- Martin Herberg, Global Governance and Conflict of Laws from a Foucauldian Perspective: The Power/Knowledge Nexus Revisited
- Michelle Everson, The Limits of the 'Conflicts Approach': Law in Times of Political Turmoil
Within days of Madeleine Albright's confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1993, she instructed David Scheffer to spearhead the historic mission to create a war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. As senior adviser to Albright and then as President Clinton's ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, Scheffer was at the forefront of the efforts that led to criminal tribunals for the Balkans, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia, and that resulted in the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court. All the Missing Souls is Scheffer's gripping insider's account of the international gamble to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and to redress some of the bloodiest human rights atrocities in our time.
Scheffer reveals the truth behind Washington's failures during the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, the anemic hunt for notorious war criminals, how American exceptionalism undercut his diplomacy, and the perilous quests for accountability in Kosovo and Cambodia. He takes readers from the killing fields of Sierra Leone to the political back rooms of the U.N. Security Council, providing candid portraits of major figures such as Madeleine Albright, Anthony Lake, Richard Goldstone, Louise Arbour, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, Richard Holbrooke, and Wesley Clark, among others.
- Volume 350
- W. van Gerven, Plaidoirie pour une nouvelle branche du droit: le «droit des conflits d’ordres juridiques» dans le prolongement du «droit des conflits de règles» (conférence inaugurale)
- A. Bonomi, Successions internationales: conflits de lois et de juridictions
- B.H. Oxman, Idealism and the Study of International Law (Inaugural Lecture)
Monday, December 12, 2011
von Bogdandy: The European Lesson for International Democracy: The Significance of Articles 9 to 12 EU Treaty for International Organizations
This text argues that Articles 9 to 12 of the EU Treaty provide a promising way to conceptualize and develop the democratic legitimation of international organizations. To be sure, the current European Union is not a democratic showcase. However, an innovative concept of democracy, neither utopian nor apologetic, has found its way into its founding treaty. It can point the way in conceiving and developing the democratic credentials not just of the EU, but of public authority beyond the state in general. Since comparison is a main avenue to insight, this piece will present those articles and show what lessons can be learnt for international organizations.
- Changing Patterns of War
- John F. Murphy, Mission Impossible? International Law and the Changing Character of War
- Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Asymmetric Warfare – How to Respond?
- Dale Stephens, The Age of Lawfare
- Cyber Operations
- Sean Watts, Low-Intensity Computer Network Attack and Self-Defense Sean Watts
- Michael N. Schmitt, Cyber Operations and the Jus in Bello: Key Issues
- Warnings and Detentions
- Pnina Sharvit Baruch & Noam Newman, Warning Civilians Prior to Attack under International Law – Theory and Practice
- Robert M. Chesney, Who May be Held? Military Detention Through the Habeas Lens
- Special Supplement
- Yoram Dinstein, Autonomy Regimes and International Law