- Thomas Cottier and Manfred Elsig, Introduction
- The origins and back to the future: a conversation with Ambassador Julio Lacarte
- Tony McGrew, After globalization? WTO reform and the new global political economy
- Marion Jansen, Internal measures in the multilateral trading system: where are the borders of the WTO agenda?
- Markus Krajewski, Legitimising global economic governance through transnational parliamentarisation: how far have we come? How much further must we go?
- Amrita Narlikar, Adapting to new power balances: institutional reform in the WTO
- Bart Kerremans, Delegation chains, agenda control, and political mobilisation: how the EU Commission tries to affect domestic mobilisation on the DDA
- Chad Bown, Developing countries and monitoring WTO commitments in response to the global economic crisis
- Kent Jones, Exploring the limits of institutional coherence in trade and development
- Mary Footer, The WTO as a 'living instrument': the contribution of consensus decision-making and informality to institutional norms and practices
- Robert Kissack, Crisis situations and consensus seeking: adaptive decision making in the FAO and applying its lessons to the reform of the WTO
- Steve Charnovitz, A post-Montesquieu analysis of the WTO
- Manfred Elsig and Thomas Cottier, Reforming the WTO: the decision-making triangle revisited
- Rorden Wilkinson, Barriers to WTO reform: intellectual narrowness and the production of path-dependent thinking
Saturday, May 28, 2011
ASIL 106th Annual Meeting
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.
ASIL welcomes ideas from its members for the 106th Annual Meeting program, Confronting Complexity.
The aim of the Annual Meeting is to promote discussion of important topics by including a range of voices and perspectives. To this end, the ASIL Program Committee relies on the submissions process to identify important topics and knowledgeable speakers. The Program Committee will then create a program with the following goals in mind.
- Ensuring coverage of a wide range of important topics of current interest to ASIL members.
- Ensuring wide participation by individuals from a variety of backgrounds, both within each Annual Meeting and across Annual Meetings.
- Ensuring a place in the program for sessions organized by ASIL Interest Groups.
Please be aware that, even if your suggested session is included in some form in the final program, it may differ significantly from the original suggestion out of a desire to achieve these three goals. The Program Committee will inform proposers by email about the status of their suggestion(s) by late August.
In order to suggest a topic or paper to the Program Committee, please click here. The deadline for submissions is Monday, June 20, 2011.
Friday, May 27, 2011
- Tore Henriksen & Geir Ulfstein, Maritime Delimitation in the Arctic: The Barents Sea Treaty
- Kristin Bartenstein, The “Arctic Exception” in the Law of the Sea Convention: A Contribution to Safer Navigation in the Northwest Passage?
- Xinjun Zhang, Why the 2008 Sino-Japanese Consensus on the East China Sea Has Stalled: Good Faith and Reciprocity Considerations in Interim Measures Pending a Maritime Boundary Delimitation
- Tore Henriksen & Alf Håkon Hoel, Determining Allocation: From Paper to Practice in the Distribution of Fishing Rights Between Countries
- David Leary & Miguel Esteban, Recent Developments in Offshore Renewable Energy in the Asia-Pacific Region
- Torbjørn Pedersen, International Law and Politics in U.S. Policymaking: The United States and the Svalbard Dispute
- A. Deidun, S. Borg, & A. Micallef, Making the Case for Marine Spatial Planning in the Maltese Islands
- Adela Rey Aneiros, Spain, the European Union, and Canada: A New Phase in the Unstable Balance in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
- Ian G. Brosnan, Thomas M. Leschine, & Edward L. Miles, Cooperation or Conflict in a Changing Arctic?
The law of the sea is an important area of international law which must be able to adapt to the changing needs of the international community. Making the Law of the Sea examines how various international organisations have contributed to the development of this law and what kinds of instruments and law-making techniques have been used. Each chapter considers a different international institution – including the International Maritime Organization and the United Nations – and analyses its functions and powers. Important questions are posed about the law-making process, including what actors are involved and what procedures are followed. Potential problems for the development of the law of the sea are considered and solutions are proposed. In particular, James Harrison explores and evaluates the current methods employed by international institutions to coordinate their law-making activities in order to overcome fragmentation of the law-making process.
- Luca G. Radicati Di Brozolo, Arbitration and Competition Law: The Position of the Courts and of Arbitrators
- Hussein Haeri, A Tale of Two Standards: ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ and the Minimum Standard in International Law — The Gillis Wetter Prize
- Andrea Carska-Sheppard, The International Arbitration Paradigm and Application of Dispute Resolution Measures — A Czech Republic Perspective
- Renata Brazil-David, An Examination of the Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration in Brazil
- John E. Beerbower, International Arbitration: Can We Realise the Potential?
- Markus Burgstaller & Charles B. Rosenberg, Challenging International Arbitral Awards: To ICSID or not to ICSID?
- Jane Korinek & Jeonghoi Kim, Export Restrictions on Strategic Raw Materials and Their Impact on Trade and Global Supply
- Adriana Dantas, The Role of WTO Rules to Discipline Climate Change-Related Agriculture Policies
- Raj Bhala & Won-Mog Choi, China's First Loss
- Nathan Fudge, Walter Mitty and the Dragon: An Analysis of the Possibility for WTO or IMF Action against China's Manipulation of the Yuan
- Jo-Ann Crawford & C.L. Lim, Cast Light and Evil Will Go Away: The Transparency Mechanism for Regulating Regional Trade Agreements Three Years After
- Tsai-Yu Lin, Systemic Reflection on the EC-IT Product Case: Establishing an 'Understanding' on Maintaining the Product Coverage of the Current Information Technology Agreement in the Face of Technological Change
- Dukgeun Ahn & Wonkyu Shin, Analysis of Anti-dumping Use in Free Trade Agreements
- Andrew D. Mitchell & Constantine Salonidis, David's Sling: Cross-Agreement Retaliation in International Trade Disputes
At a time when the United States has undertaken high-stakes counterinsurgency campaigns in three countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan) while offering support to insurgents in a fourth (Libya), it is striking that the international legal standards governing the use of force in counterinsurgency remain unsettled and deeply controversial. Some authorities have endorsed norms from international humanitarian law as lex specialis, while others have emphasized international human rights as minimum standards of care for counterinsurgency operations. This Article addresses the growing friction between international human rights and humanitarian law in counterinsurgency by developing a relational theory of the use of force. The central insight is that a state’s authority to use force under international law is derived from, and constrained by, the fiduciary character of its relationship with its people. This relational conception of state sovereignty offers an attractive normative framework for addressing conflicts between human rights and humanitarian law. When states engage in internal armed conflict and belligerent occupation, their assertion of control over an affected population entails a concomitant fiduciary obligation to satisfy the strict proportionality standard of international human rights law. Conversely, when states defend their people in traditional international armed conflict and transnational armed conflict against non-state actors, international humanitarian law ordinarily supplies the applicable proportionality standard. Examples from conflicts in Afghanistan, Argentina, Israel, Libya, and Russia illustrate how the relational approach to choice-of-law analysis could lay a more coherent and principled foundation for counterinsurgency regulation under international law.
- E.J. Molenaar, Non-Participation in the Fish Stocks Agreement: Status and Reasons
- Zou Keyuan, Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use of Force and Coercive Measures
- Jenny Grote Stoutenburg, Implementing a New Regime of Stable Maritime Zones to Ensure the (Economic) Survival of Small Island States Threatened by Sea-Level Rise
- Bjørn Kunoy, Establishment of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Is Crossing Boundaries Trespassing?
- Abdul Ghafur Hamid, Current Legal Developments International Court of Justice
- Richard Barnes, Current Legal Developments UN Security Council
- Armin von Bogdandy & Ingo Venzke, Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers
- Marc Jacobs, Precedents: Lawmaking Through International Adjudication
- Karin Oellers-Frahm, Lawmaking Through Advisory Opinions?
- Eyal Benvenisti & George W. Downs, Prospects for the Increased Independence of International Tribunals
- Stephan W. Schill, System-Building in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Lawmaking
- Ingo Venzke, Making General Exceptions: The Spell of Precedents in Developing Article XX GATT into Standards for Domestic Regulatory Policy
- Thomas Kleinlein, Judicial Lawmaking by Judicial Restraint? The Potential of Balancing in International Economic Law
- Michael Ioannidis, A Procedural Approach to the Legitimacy of International Adjudication: Developing Standards of Participation in WTO Law
- Christina Binder, The Prohibition of Amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- Markus Fyrnys, Expanding Competences by Judicial Lawmaking: The Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights
- Milan Kuhli & Klaus Günther, Judicial Lawmaking, Discourse Theory, and the ICTY on Belligerent Reprisals
- Karin Oellers-Frahm, Expanding the Competence to Issue Provisional Measures—Strengthening the International Judicial Function
- Niels Petersen, Lawmaking by the International Court of Justice—Factors of Success
- Lorenzo Casini, The Making of a Lex Sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport
- Armin von Bogdandy & Ingo Venzke, On the Democratic Legitimation of International Judicial Lawmaking
Thursday, May 26, 2011
- Benjamin K. Sovacool & Kelly E. Siman, Revoking a License to Krill: What the United States Can Do to Save Fish Stocks in Antarctica
- Jesús Verdú Baeza, The Law of the Sea and Environmental Problems in the Strait of Gibraltar
- Dan Goodman, The “Future of the IWC”: Why the Initiative to Save the International Whaling Commission Failed
Rodrigo & García: Unidad y pluralismo en el Derecho Internacional público y en la Comunidad Internacional
- Ángel J. Rodrigo & Caterina García, Introducción: la vuelta a la teoría por medio del diálogo científico
- Oriol Casanovas, Aproximación a una teoría de los regímenes en Derecho internacional público
- Celestino del Arenal, Homogeneidad y heterogeneidad en la Sociedad internacional como bases de las tendencias hacia la integración y la fragmentación
- Caterina García, Unidad y pluralismo en la Sociedad internacional: el debate contemporáneo entre cosmopolitismo y comunitarismo
- Josep Ibañez, Actores, autoridades y sujetos: el pluralismo de la política mundial y su incidencia sobre el ordenamiento jurídico internacional
- Pablo Pareja, Unidad y pluralismo en la Sociedad internacional: la complementariedad entre el orden internacional y el orden regional de Asia oriental
- Manuel Pérez González, Pluralidad de regímenes, unidad del ordenamiento
- Antonio Remiro, La noción de regímenes internacionales en el Derecho internacional público
- Rosario Huesa, El impacto de los regímenes especiales en las fuentes del Derecho internacional
- José Manuel Sobrino, Las relaciones de subsidiariedad entre regímenes internacionales
- Romualdo Bermejo, Las relaciones de complementariedad entre regímenes internacionales
- Charles Leben, Le droit européen et l'investissement international
- Tullio Treves, La Corte Internacional de Justicia: Su relación con otros tribunales internacionales
- José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Unidad y pluralismo en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE. Hacia un refuerzo del autonomía del Derecho comunitario frente al Derecho internacional
- José Juste Ruiz, Unidad y pluralismo en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar
- Ángel J. Rodrigo, La integración normativa y la unidad del Derecho internacional público
- Paz Andrés Sáenz de Santa María, El principio de integración sistémica y la unidad del Derecho internacional
- Jorge Cardona, Los conflictos entre normas internacionales del miso rango: a la búsqueda de criterios de solución
- Miguel Ángel Elizalde, Los tratados sucesivos sobre la misma materia: expresión de la unidad y el pluralismo en el DIP
- Cesáreo Gutiérrez Espada, El orden público internacional
- Antonio Fernández Tomás, "Nueva corriente" y derechos humanos: entre la apología de su reconocimiento y la utopía de su protección universal
- Mariano Aznar, "La constitucionalización" del Derecho internacional
- Fernando Mariño, Crimen de feminicidio y prevención de la tortura: A propósito de la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en el caso del campo algodonero (2009)
- Santiago Ripol, La conciencia de la Humanidad
- Silvia Morgades, Unidad y pluralismo en la protección internacional de refugiados y beneficiarios de protección subsidiaria en Europa: el requisito de la individualización del riesgo en caso de violencia indiscriminada en situación de conflicto armado
- David Fontana, The Rise and Fall of Comparative Constitutional Law in the Postwar Era
- Chimène I. Keitner, Rights Beyond Borders
- Amnon Lehavi & Amir N. Licht, BITs and Pieces of Property
Although the concept of soft law has existed for years, scholars have not reached consensus on why states use soft law or even whether “soft law” is a coherent analytic category. In part, this confusion reflects a deep diversity in both the types of international agreements and the strategic situations that produce them. In this paper, we advance four complementary explanations for why states use soft law that describe a much broader range of state behavior than has been previously explained. First, and least significantly, states may use soft law to solve straightforward coordination games in which the existence of a focal point is enough to generate compliance. Second, under what we term the loss avoidance theory, moving from soft law to hard law generates higher sanctions that both deter more violations and, because sanctions in the international system are negative sum, increase the net loss to the parties. States will choose soft law when the marginal costs in terms of the expected loss from violations exceed the marginal benefits in terms of deterred violations. Third, under the delegation theory, states choose soft law when they are uncertain about whether the rules they adopt today will be desirable tomorrow and when it is advantageous to allow a particular state or group of states to adjust expectations in the event of changed circumstances. Moving from hard law to soft law makes it easier for such states to renounce existing rules or interpretations of rules and drive the evolution of soft law rules in a way that may be more efficient than formal renegotiation. Fourth, we introduce the concept of international common law (ICL), which we define as a nonbinding gloss that international institutions, such as international tribunals, put on binding legal rules. The theory of ICL is based on the observation that, except occasionally with respect to the facts and parties to the dispute before it, the decisions of international tribunals are nonbinding interpretations of binding legal rules. States grant institutions the authority to make ICL as a way around the requirement that states must consent in order to be bound by legal rules. ICL affects all states subject to the underlying rule, regardless of whether they have consented to the creation of the ICL. As such, ICL provides cooperation-minded states with the opportunity to deepen cooperation in exchange for surrendering some measure of control over legal rules. These four explanations of soft law, and in particular the theory of ICL, provide a firm justification for the coherence of soft law as an analytic category. They demonstrate that legal consequences flow from a range of nonbinding international instruments, just as nonbinding documents in the domestic setting, such as legislative committee reports, often have legal consequences when, for example, used to interpret binding rules. Moreover, the theories offered in this paper explain the circumstances under which this quasi-legal characteristic of soft law will be attractive to states.
- Christoph Safferling, The Role of the Victim in the Criminal Process - A Paradigm Shift in National German and International Law?
- Sara Wharton, The Evolution of International Criminal Law: Prosecuting 'New' Crimes before the Special Court for Sierra Leone
- Janine Natalya Clark, Transitional Justice, Truth and Reconciliation: An Under-Explored Relationship
- Jonathan Doak, The Therapeutic Dimension of Transitional Justice: Emotional Repair and Victim Satisfaction in International Trials and Truth Commissions
- Fabián O. Raimondo, For Further Research on the Relationship between Cultural Diversity and International Criminal Law
- Stan Starygin, Judicial Discretion in ECCC Decisions on Pre-trial Detention against the Backdrop of the Case-law of the International Criminal Tribunals
We are pleased to announce a forthcoming TDM special issue on “International Business Dispute Resolution by ADR in Asia.” This special issue will analyze new trends, developments, and challenges in the use of ADR to resolve business disputes in Asia. It will consider arbitration, mediation, conciliation and other forms of ADR.
This special issue will be edited by Professor A.F.M. Maniruzzaman (University of Portsmouth) and Gary Born (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP).
Asia has experienced substantial growth in the use of ADR – and international arbitration in particular – to resolve international business disputes in recent years. The ascendance of ADR in Asia is in part a product of the growth of Asian countries’ economies and their increased participation in global commerce. The rise of China, India, and other Asian states as major investment destinations and the expansion of Asian multinational corporations overseas have increased business opportunities, and thus the numbers of business disputes, in the region.
The high demand for ADR services, in turn, has driven many Asian governments to cultivate a pro-arbitration environment through new arbitration legislation and other mechanisms, and has led to the proliferation of international arbitral centres throughout Asia (including in Singapore, Hong Kong and elsewhere). Likewise, many global law firms have also responded to this increased demand by aggressively entering the Asian market and deploying significant resources to the region.
This TDM special issue will provide international practitioners and academics with an overview of the new developments in the ADR field unfolding across the region, and prepare them for the Asian-specific challenges they are likely to encounter in their ADR practices.
Possible topics for submission to the special issue might include:
- Whether the proliferation of arbitral institutions across Asia, and the increase in the case loads of these institutions, reflects growing trends in the Asian business community;
- The background to, and likely effects of, newly proposed or enacted arbitration legislation in major international arbitration destinations such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia, as well as in emerging international arbitration destinations such as India, Pakistan, and Vietnam;
- The practical significance of the 2010 revisions to the UNCITRAL Rules and the SIAC Rules, and of the newly published LCIA India Rules;
- The judicial and legal sector reforms necessary to improve the quality and independence of the judiciary, and foster a pro-arbitration culture, in emerging Asian states;
- The challenges of enforcing international arbitration awards and implementing the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention in developing Asian countries;
- Attitudes in Asia toward the use of treaty arbitration;
- Prospect of mediation of investment disputes in Asia;
- Obstacles for foreign lawyers to entering the Asian legal market and how they can be overcome;
- Empirical study of international business disputes by ADR in Asia;
- The impact of Asian legal culture on business dispute resolution in Asia (e.g., the tendency toward equity-based compromise decisions of Asian arbitrators) and the effect of cultural norms on the practice of various forms of ADR in Asia (e.g., the practice of combining mediation and arbitration in the same proceeding); and
- Influence of Asian dispute resolution culture / tradition beyond Asia.
We invite all those with an interest in the subject to contribute articles or notes on one of the above topics or any other relevant issue. This special issue will be edited by:
Chair, International Arbitration
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Professor A F M Maniruzzaman
Chair in International and Business Law
School of Law, University of Portsmouth, U.K.
Publication is expected in October / November 2011. Proposals for papers should be submitted to the editors by the end of May 2011.
- Wenhua Ji & Cui Huang, China's Experience in Dealing with WTO Dispute Settlement: A Chinese Perspective
- Andrew Grainger, Trade Facilitation: A Conceptual Review
- Weifeng Zhou & Ludo Cuyvers, Linking International Trade and Labour Standards: The Effectiveness of Sanctions under the European Union's GSP
- Panagiotis Delimatsis, The Fragmentation of International Trade Law
- Alberto Alvarez-Jiménez, Drug Trafficking, Money Laundering and International Trade Restrictions after the WTO Panel Report in Colombia – Ports of Entry: How to Align WTO Law with International Law
- Jingxia Shi & Weidong Chen, The ‘Specificity’ of Cultural Products versus the ‘Generality’ of Trade Obligations: Reflecting on ‘China – Publications and Audiovisual Products’
- Benjamin Blase Caryl, Is China's Currency Regime A Countervailable Subsidy? A Legal Analysis Under the World Trade Organization's SCM Agreement
- Matthew Kennedy, Why Are WTO Panels Taking Longer? And What Can Be Done About It?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
- Georges Abi-Saab, The Normalization of International Adjudication: Convergence and Divergencies
- Gerald L. Neuman, Anti-Ashwander: Constitutional Litigation as a First Resort in France
- Kenneth J. Vandevelde, A Unified Theory of Fair and Equitable Treatment
Le patrimoine culturel constitue un ensemble d’éléments immatériels comme matériels qui participe à la construction et à la vie des identités humaines. Réalité longtemps oubliée du droit, elle le met désormais au défi, à l’heure de proposer une définition puis d’élaborer un régime juridique adapté à sa nature comme à ses besoins. Plus particulièrement, le droit international se heurte à une double difficulté à l’occasion de la détermination des compétences des Etats en la matière : il se doit de prendre en considération la nature particulière du patrimoine culturel, c’est-à-dire sa dimension humaine intrinsèque, d’une part, et le rattachement de ses différentes composantes à tel ou tel groupe humain, voire à tel ou tel espace, d’autre part.
Aussi la détermination des compétences étatiques à l’égard du patrimoine culturel constitue-t-elle une opération à la fois cruciale et délicate. Nombreux sont les enjeux qui s’y attachent, tant en matière d’efficacité de la protection que de mise en valeur des identités humaines et de respect des droits de l’homme, ou encore d’attribution d’un élément du patrimoine culturel à un peuple, un territoire ou un Etat particulier.
La recherche des règles de droit positif ou en formation en la matière conduit à mettre en évidence un principe, celui du recours à la compétence classique de l’Etat territorial. Inadapté à bien des égards, le titre territorial présente l’avantage d’une apparente simplicité, et permet d’assurer la protection de la plupart des éléments du patrimoine culturel. Des titres complémentaires, non territoriaux, se multiplient par ailleurs.Ils tendent à réajuster la définition voire l’articulation des compétences étatiques pour les faire davantage concorder avec la nature et les besoins de leur objet. La singularité du patrimoine culturel est alors prise en considération de manière croissante par le droit international, qui propose un ordonnancement modulable des compétences étatiques et subordonne l’ensemble du régime juridique à la nécessité de préserver au mieux l’essence comme l’apparence de ces objets à forte dimension symbolique et humaine.
d'Aspremont: Participants in the International Legal System: Multiple Perspectives on Non-State Actors in International Law
- Michael Reisman, Foreword
- Math Noortmann, Presentation
- Jean d’Aspremont, Introduction – Non-State Actors in International Law: Oscillating Between Concepts and Dynamics
- Jean d’Aspremont, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of Legal Positivism: the Communitarian Semantics for the Secondary Rules of International Law
- Thomas Kleinlein, Non-State Actors from an International Constitutionalist Perspective: Participation matters!
- Jörg Kammerhofer, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of a Pure Theory of Law
- Anthony d’Amato, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the Policy Oriented School: Power, Law, Actors and the View from New Haven
- Math Noortmann, Towards an Interdisciplinary Approach to Non-State Participation in the Formation of Global Law and Order
- Nicolas Leroux, Non-State Actors in French Legal Scholarship: International Legal Personality’ in Question
- Rémi Bachand, Non-State Actors in North American Legal Scholarship: Four Lessons for the Progressive and Critical International Lawyer
- Hsien-Li Teresa, Non-state Actors in Southeast Asia: How does Civil Society Contribute Towards Norm-building in a State-centric Environment?
- Lauri Mälksoo, Contemporary Russian Perspectives on Non-State Actors: Fear of the Loss of State Sovereignty
- Gleider I. Hernández, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the International Court of Justice
- Gentian Zyberi, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the International Law Commission
- François Rigaux, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the Institut de Droit international
- Guido Acquaviva, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of International Criminal Tribunals
- Raphaël van Steenberghe, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the International Committee of the Red Cross
- Math Noortmann, The International Law Association and Non-State Actors
- Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff, NGO’s Perspectives on Non-State Actors
- Eric de Brabandere, Non-State Actors and Human Rights: Corporate Responsibility and the Attempts to Formalize the Role of Corporations as Participants in the International Legal System
- Cedric Ryngaert, Non-State Actors in International Humanitarian Law
- Cassandra Steer, Non-State Actors in International Criminal Law
- Richard Collins, Non-State Actors in International Institutional Law: Non-State, Inter-state or Supra-State? The Peculiar Identity of the Intergovernmental Organization in International Institutional Law
- Nicholas Tsagourias, Non-State Actors in International Peace and Security: Non-state actors and the Use of Force
- Eric de Brabandere, Non-State Actors in International Dispute Settlement: Pragmatism in International Law
- Patrick Dumberry & Érik Labelle-Eastaugh, Non-State Actors in International Investment Law: To Be or Not To Be? The Legal Personality of Non-State Actors in International Investment Law
- Makane Mbengue, Non-State Actors in International Environmental Law: A Rousseauist Perspective
- Penelope Mathew, Non-State Actors in Refugee Law: L’Etat, c’est Moi. Refugee Law as a Response to Non State Action
- Damien Gerard, Non-State Actors in European Law: Enhanced Participation of Non-State Actors in EU Law-Making and Law-Enforcement Processes -- a Quest for Legitimacy
- Jean d’Aspremont, Conclusions : Inclusive Law-making and Law-enforcement Processes for an Exclusive International Legal System
- Jose Augusto Fontoura Costa, Comparing WTO Panelists and ICSID Arbitrators: the Creation of International Legal Fields
- Daniel Drache, Reform at the top: What's next for the WTO? A second life? A socio-political analysis
- James Flett, From the Green Room to the Court Room (And Back): Judicial Clarification of Ambiguity in WTO Law and the Effects on Subsequent Negotiations
- Gus Van Harten, Contributions and Limitations of Empirical Research on Independence and Impartiality in International Investment Arbitration
- Peter Muchlinski, Corporations and the Uses of Law: International Investment Arbitration as a “Multilateral Legal Order"
- David Schneiderman, Legitimacy and Reflexivity in International Investment Arbitration: A New Self-Restraint?
- Valentina Sara Vadi, Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Adjudication of Cultural Diversity Disputes in International Economic Law
- Karen J. Alter, Laurence R. Helfer, & Osvaldo Saldías, Transplanting the European Court of Justice: The Experience of the Andean Tribunal of Justice
- Gregory Shaffer & Joel Trachtman, Interpretation and Institutional Choice at the WTO
Do the rulings of international courts set precedents that influence actors other than the parties to the dispute? Are international courts agents of change or do their judgments merely reflect ongoing social and political trends? We answer these questions in the context of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. ECtHR judgments often explicitly reflect evolving practices in Council of Europe’s member states. We suggest three mechanisms through which such judgments could push lagging states toward adopting policies and laws in line with those of more progressive countries. First, national courts can rely on ECtHR jurisprudence to invalidate domestic laws. Second, ECtHR rulings can help inform and mobilize domestic constituencies to push for legislative change. Third, ECtHR rulings can have an indirect effect by affecting the conditions the EU and the Council of Europe set for membership. We investigate these hypotheses using a new dataset that matches ECtHR judgments on LGBT issues with national laws and policies in Council of Europe member countries. We address endogeneity concerns by modeling the Court’s decision-making process. We find that ECtHR judgments have a significant and positive effect on the probability that lagging countries will adopt legal reforms that expand LGBT rights and that all three mechanisms contribute to this. Even though the implementation of ECtHR rulings is far from perfect, the precedential effect of these rulings sometimes induces states to adopt policies that they might otherwise not have adopted or would have adopted later.
- Edwin Odhiambo Abuya & Charles Ikobe, Wasted Lives: Internally Displaced Persons Living in Camps in Kenya
- Kirill Koroteev, Legal Remedies for Human Rights Violations in the Armed Conflict in Chechnya: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights in Context
- Jonathan Horowitz, Human Rights, Positive Obligations, and Armed Conflict: Implementing the Right to Education in Occupied Territories
- Pablo Antonio Fernández-Sánchez, The Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law and Refugee Law
- Kate Mackintosh, Reclaiming Protection as a Humanitarian Goal: Fodder for the Faint-Hearted Aid-Worker
- Necessity Across International Law
- Tarcisio Gazzini, Wouter G. Werner & Ige F. Dekker, Necessity Across International Law: An Introduction
- Nicholas Tsagourias, Necessity and the Use of Force: A Special Regime
- Gabriella Venturini, Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict and in International Criminal Law
- Cedric Ryngaert, State Responsibility, Necessity and Human Rights
- Asif H. Qureshi, A Necessity Paradigm of 'Necessity' in International Economic Law
- August Reinisch, Necessity in Investment Arbitration
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Necessity in International Environmental Law
- Panos Koutrakos, The Notion of Necessity in the Law of the European Union
In the post-War era, international law became a talisman for the protection of individuals from governmental abuse. Such was the success of this “humanization of international law” that by the 1990s human rights had become "part of . . . international political and legal culture.” This Article argues that there has been an unnoticed contemporary countertrend - the “regulatory turn in international law.” Within the past two decades, states and international organizations have at an unprecedented rate entered into agreements, passed resolutions, enacted laws, and created institutions and networks, formal and informal, that impose and enforce direct and indirect international duties upon individuals or that buttress and facilitate a state’s authorities respecting those under and even beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Whereas the human rights turn protected the individual against excessive governmental control, these parallel processes do just the opposite - they facilitate and enhance the regulatory authorities of government (both national and international) in relation to the individual.
The regulatory turn represents a fundamental challenge to the assumptions and dynamics of traditional international law. While once the international system shied away from acting directly on individuals, it now asserts such authority with regularity through the articulation of rules and the adoption of decisions. And while once international law deferred to states in the implementation of common rules pertaining to individual duties and their enforcement, it now often eschews state discretion and instead dictates with increasing specificity the provisions to be adopted at the national and sub-national levels. This constitutive realignment in the international system’s position vis-à-vis the individual complicates our inherited vision of international law and the expectations that flow therefrom. The system effects include the restructuring of the distributions of power to and among states and international institutions; the reframing of the ways in which international problems and solutions are imagined; the reallocation of resources to support law enforcement organizations and programs; the recalibration of the substantive and procedural demands made upon international decision-making processes; and even the reconfiguring of the ways in which we, as individuals, imagine each other.
This Article draws connections between diverse subject matters and practices, past and present, so that we can better discern the otherwise hidden trend that is the regulatory turn, situate it within the emerging system of international governance, and appraise its effects.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
- Ian Johnstone, Do International Organizations have Reputations?
- Paolo Palchetti, Armed Attack against the Military Force of an International Organization and Use of Force in Self-Defence by a Troop-Contributing State: A Tentative Legal Assessment of an Unlikely Scenario
- Paolo Vargiu, From Advisory Opinions to Binding Decisions: The new Appeal Mechanism of the UN system of Administration of Justice
- Matthew Parish, An essay on the Accountability of International Organizations
- Viljam Engström, How to Tame the Elusive: Lessons from the Revision of the EU Flexibility Clause
- Cheah Wui Ling, Policing Interpol: The Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files and the Right to a Remedy
- Edouard Fromageau, Collaborating with the United nations: Does Flexibility Imply Informality?
Estreicher: Privileging Asymmetric Warfare (Part ll)?: The 'Proportionality' Principle Under International Humanitarian Law
The laws of war are undergoing a fundamental transformation. The first step was the unmooring of the obligations of states and armies from the binds of reciprocity - the prospect that violations should be avoided because they will result in comparable reprisals from the other side - that began with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and culminated in the 1977 Additional Protocols (AP I and II). The second major step - still an ongoing process - has been to substitute for the threat of reprisals the grounding of these obligations in enforceable, positive law. What started haltingly with the promulgation of several “grave” offenses in Geneva has - with the establishment of the International Criminal Court, international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda authorized by the UN Security Council, conventions against torture and other practices, and the sustained pressure of a proliferating number of nongovernmental organizations seeking to enforce human and IHL rights violations through international criminal and tort law - reshaped the international legal landscape.
These developments call for closer attention to AP I, the principal legal framework for regulating warfare that many writers on international law believe binds not only ratifying countries, but also all nations and their inhabitants as a matter of customary international law. In an earlier article in this journal, I argued that the growth of “guerrilla” or irregular warfare - involving non-state armed groups locating themselves within dense civilian settlements in order to provoke a military response from occupying or NATO armies that would inevitably cause civilian casualties and generate additional recruits for the insurgent cause - requires a greater emphasis on broadly defining and strongly enforcing the duties of defenders to refrain from locating their military forces and assets among civilians. The overarching objective of IHL is to reduce unnecessary harm to civilians in the armed conflicts that warfare causes. This risk of harm is a joint product of both defenders and attackers and has to be regulated as such.
The focus of this article is on the so-called principle of “proportionality,” which regulates the conduct of warfare in an effort to limit harm to civilians during otherwise legitimate armed conflict. I use the qualifying adjective “so-called” because “proportionality” in this context is a misnomer. The actual obligation, as set forth in Articles 51(5)(b) and 57(2)(b) of AP I, speaks in terms of prohibiting (and deferring) attacks expected to cause incidental civilian losses “which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” Neither the text nor the policy of IHL requires some form of “balancing” or use of a “sliding scale” to ensure that the military objective is “proportionate,” in the sense of being commensurate with the extent of civilian losses? What is required is that the military use no more force than necessary to accomplish concrete, direct military objectives.
The proposed “excessive loss” formulation is not only truer to the text of AP I but provides a sounder, more principled basis for judging violations, for insisting on military commander compliance - than the more elastic, manipulable “proportionality” formulation, which invites commentators and tribunals to second-guess military objectives and compare and weigh essentially non-comparable factors.
- Trine Baumbach, The Notion of Criminal Penalty and the Lex Mitior Principle in the Scoppola v. Italy Case
- Meg Brodie, Progressing Norm Socialisation: Why Membership Matters. The Impact of the Accreditation Process of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
- Ian Bryan & Peter Langford, The Lawful Detention of Unauthorised Aliens under the European System for the Protection of Human Rights
- Yenkong Ngangjoh-Hodu, Relationship of GATT Article XX Exceptions to Other WTO Agreements
Theory about the relevance of soft law abounds; empirical research on the topic does not. This study begins to even out this imbalance by not only developing a number of conjectures based on institutional economics, but also by testing them empirically. Based on all 2,289 soft laws concluded by the United States between 1981 and 2010, I find the following. (1) the number of international agreements increased dramatically between the mid 1990s until around 2006; since then, however, their use has declined almost as dramatically. (2) Around two-thirds of all international agreements concern only three policy areas: the military, science and technology, and aid. (3) More than 90% of all international agreements are conducted bilaterally. (4) Some 40 percent of these agreements are concluded by a non-traditional actor on the U.S. side, i.e., an actor other than the President or the secretary of state.
Les débats contemporains sur le droit international révèlent de fortes divergences de vues entre juristes européens et américains. À quoi tiennent de telles oppositions ? En quoi la lecture du droit international aux États-Unis est-elle différente de celle proposée en Europe ? C’est à ces questions qu’entend répondre la présente étude. L’objet est de montrer qu’il existe une approche proprement américaine de la discipline, dont les origines remontent à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. L’analyse des méthodes et des points de vue développés par les membres de la doctrine américaine depuis cette époque montre leur intérêt profond pour l’étude des aspects concrets du droit international et de ses rapports avec la prise de décision politique. Fondée sur le réalisme, cette approche conduit la plupart d’entre eux à faire une lecture instrumentale du droit international. En insistant sur la flexibilité des normes juridiques, en utilisant des méthodes d’analyse issues de la science politique ou de l’économie et en privilégiant le rapprochement entre les ordres juridiques interne et international, les juristes américains relativisent alors l’image du droit international comme une science autonome.
- JHHW, Demystifying the EJIL Selection and Editorial Process: How Does One Get Published in EJIL?; Who Gets Published in EJIL?; In the Dock, in Paris – The Judgment; In this Issue
- Symposium: The Human Dimension of International Cultural Heritage Law
- Francesco Francioni, The Human Dimension of International Cultural Heritage Law: An Introduction
- Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Genocide and Restitution: Ensuring Each Group's Contribution to Humanity
- Thérèse O'Donnell, The Restitution of Holocaust Looted Art and Transitional Justice: The Perfect Storm or the Raft of the Medusa?
- Lucas Lixinski, Selecting Heritage: The Interplay of Art, Politics and Identity
- Federico Lenzerini, Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living Culture of Peoples
- Siegfried Wiessner, The Cultural Rights of Indigenous Peoples:Achievements and Continuing Challenges
- Karen Engle, On Fragile Architecture: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Context of Human Rights
- Gaetano Pentassuglia, Towards a Jurisprudential Articulation of Indigenous Land Rights
- Micaela Frulli, The Criminalization of Offences against Cultural Heritage in Times of Armed Conflict: The Quest for Consistency
- EJIL: Debate!
- Sandesh Sivakumaran, Re-envisaging the International Law of Internal Armed Conflict
- Gabriella Blum, Re-envisaging the International Law of Internal Armed Conflict: A Reply to Sandesh Sivakumaran
- Sandesh Sivakumaran, Re-envisaging the International Law of Internal Armed Conflict: A Rejoinder to Gabriella Blum
The legitimacy of the World Bank's dispute resolution body - The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) - is a matter of heated debate. Some states have alleged that ICSID is biased, withdrawn from the ICSID Convention, and advocated creating alternative arbitration systems. Using pre-2007 archival data of the population of then- known arbitration awards, this Article quantitatively assesses whether ICSID arbitration awards were substantially different from arbitration awards rendered in other forums. The Article examines variation in the amounts claimed and outcomes reached to evaluate indicators of bias. The results indicated that there was no reliable statistical relationship between ICSID arbitrations and either amounts claimed or ultimate outcomes. The results generally did not show a statistical difference when controlling for (1) the presence of an Energy dispute, (2) the presence of a Latin American respondent, or (3) the respondent's Development Status. Nevertheless, although outcomes were not statistically different for Latin American and non-Latin American respondents, amounts claimed against Latin American states were higher - but only for non-ICSID arbitration. While the arguably higher initial arbitration risk may contribute to concerns related to perception of bias, the results provide initial evidence that those criticisms may have been misattributed to ICSID. Results suggested, on the whole, that ICSID arbitration awards were not statistically different from other arbitral processes, which is preliminary evidence that ICSID arbitration was not necessarily biased or that investment arbitration operated in reasonably equivalent ways across forums. Caution about this finding is appropriate given the size of the pre-2007 population and as one analysis suggested that for the subset comprised only of ICSID Convention awards as compared to all other awards (including ICSID Additional Facility awards), awards against Low Income respondents were statistically higher than awards against High Income respondents. Qualitative commonalities in that small subset of awards revealed the presence of certain types of law firms (or the lack thereof) or recent civil war in African states. In light of the initial quantitative findings for a pre-2007 population of arbitration awards, but recognizing the need for replication and methods to facilitate qualitative and normative assessments of ICSID, this Article concludes by suggesting that there may be value in implementing tailored reforms and structural safeguards to address arguable concerns of bias, improve the management of international economic conflict, and minimize a potential backlash to the international investment system.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Pfeil: Globale Verrechtlichung: Global Governance und die Konstitutionalisierung des internationalen Rechts
Völkerrecht und die Praxis internationaler Politik stehen in einem schwierigen Verhältnis zueinander. Doch wie hat sich dieses Verhältnis bisher entwickelt und welchen Stellenwert hat das Völkerrecht heute in den internationalen Beziehungen? Dieser Frage widmet sich der Autor in diesem Band und untersucht das Phänomen der globalen Verrechtlichung.
Grundlage dafür bildet eine an langfristigen Prozessmustern interessierte historisch-soziologische Herangehensweise. Dabei wird dargestellt, welche Rolle das internationale Recht im Rahmen von Global Governance spielt, welche empirischen Entwicklungstendenzen im Laufe der Zeit seine Bedeutung haben wachsen lassen und welche gegenläufigen Tendenzen dem entgegengewirkt haben. Die Befunde zeigen, dass die globale Verrechtlichung in verschiedenen Politikbereichen erstaunlich weit fortgeschritten ist – teilweise so weit, dass die Rede von einer „Konstitutionalisierung“, im Sinne der Herausbildung eines Weltverfassungsrechts, durchaus treffend ist. Dem stehen insbesondere im Politikfeld der Sicherheitspolitik gefährliche entrechtlichende Tendenzen gegenüber.
Is there an “International Community?” This Article suggests that there is not, that the oft-discussed fragmentation of international law reveals that there are in fact multiple overlapping and competing international law communities, each with differing views on law and legitimacy.
This Article reaches this conclusion by taking a fresh look not only at the sources of fragmentation, but at the sources of international law itself. Building on earlier work rethinking international law’s sources and drawing insights from legal philosophy, compliance theory, and international relations, this Article takes a closer look at three areas that have challenged traditional interpretations of international law, (1) human rights, (2) global administrative law, and (3) the law applied by international tribunals. What it finds is that the challenges posed by each area run much deeper than doctrine, that in fact, in each area a new legal community has formed that no longer shares traditional international law’s understanding of legitimate lawmaking. These legal communities no longer recognize a single, unifying doctrine of sources.
Such a realization puts conflicts over international law in a new light. To the extent that debates between human rights and international humanitarian law or trade law and the environment represent debates over the standards for legitimate lawmaking rather than conflicts over interpretation, doctrinal fixes will never fully resolve them. Instead, they must be viewed as true conflicts of law; resolutions must mediate between the overlapping demands of different legal communities.
Lien juridique de rattachement entre un Etat et un individu, la nationalité est une notion qui doit également être envisagée, sur le plan interne, comme un état (status) de l’individu. Historiquement liée à une notion plus ou moins forte d’allégeance, la nationalité, par cette double dimension, occupe en tant que notion juridique, le champ du droit international public et privé mais également du droit de l’Union européenne et du droit international des droits de l’homme. Oscillant entre sources internes, internationales et régionales qu’il convient d’articuler de manière systématique, la nationalité reste néanmoins inhérente aux compétences personnelles étatiques et ne peut être détachée de la notion d’Etat et d’une forme certaine d’ « Etatialité ». Toutefois, l’évolution des sources du droit international de la nationalité préfigure des postulats novateurs focalisés sur une dimension plus objective en allant, dans certaines hypothèses, jusqu’à définir dans le cadre conventionnel un droit objectif à la nationalité. La définition traditionnelle s’en trouve alors potentiellement révisée. Cette remise en question d’une uniformité juridique théorique et pratique ouvre ainsi des champs d’analyse pluriels permettant de s’interroger de manière générale sur la redéfinition, la place et la portée de la notion de nationalité dans le cadre du droit international contemporain.
Over the last ten years there has been something of a crisis in American confidence in, and support for, international law. As the idea of order and justice in the international realm is considered and rationalized from various perspectives, it seems appropriate to consider also how it might be regarded from the viewpoint of the world’s leading religions. These lectures were delivered in late March 2011 as the Charles E. Test Lectures in the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Lecture 1 begins the task of considering law beyond the state from a specifically Christian point of view, though it also addresses the difficulties of sustaining a viewpoint of this kind in a multi-faith and indeed increasingly secular world. Lecture 2 considers nationhood, sovereignty, and the basis for the division of the world into separate political communities. Clearly a religious approach to order in the international realm will endorse the position of most modern international jurists that sovereign independence is not to be made into an idol or a fetish, and that the tasks of order and peace in the world are not to be conceived as optional, which sovereigns may or may not support at their pleasure. At the same time, sovereigns have their own mission, ordering particular communities of men and women; and this task, too, should not be slighted. Finally Lecture 3 will consider the rival claims of natural law and positivism in regard to the sources of international law Natural law is no doubt important in any Christian jurisprudence. But the most telling part of natural law jurisprudence from Aquinas to Finnis has always been its insistence on the specific human need for positive law. This holds true in the international realm as much as in any realm of human order - perhaps more so, because in the international realm law has to do its work unsupported by the overwhelming power of a particular state. So this final lecture will address, from a religious point of view, the sources of law in the international realm: treaty, convention, custom, precedent, and jurisprudence. It will focus particularly on the sanctification of treaties.
L'objet de cet ouvrage est de s'interroger sur les finalités du droit international présent et passé. Le droit international, classiquement présenté comme un droit libéral de coexistence et de coopération entre États, a été en fait depuis son origine un droit également providence. Depuis son émergence au XVIIIe siècle en Europe, il s'est imposé à l'ensemble de la société internationale (européenne puis mondiale) en ne répondant pas seulement aux intérêts des États et à leur souci de stabilité; il a aussi été considéré comme une «providence», un droit interventionniste qui allait faire accéder les peuples au bonheur et au bien-être. D'où le fait que le droit international traduit originairement un modèle eschatologique sécularisé. Comme tel, il a pris sa place dans les réponses qu'à partir du XVIIIe siècle les Européens ont cherché à donner, en lieu et place du religieux, pour organiser une humanité considérée à la fois comme une et comme divisée. Or ce projet originaire tend encore à animer l'ensemble de notre monde globalisé post-guerre froide. Le droit international contemporain n'est ni un droit strictement providence, ni un droit strictement libéral, mais bel et bien un droit libéral-providence; et dans l'association de ces deux finalités se trouve l'une des clefs de sa signification et ce qui explique également en partie ses ambivalences constantes.
This short paper argues that in the next decades we are likely to see a fundamental separation in the form and contents of the international rule of law. In a sizeable, but relatively small group of states, international law transforms itself from its international roots and interconnects and mingles with national law. In these states, we see an integration of the international and the national rule of law. In many other (and indeed most) states, the international rule of law will essentially remain limited to the international level. This paper explores some of the consequences of this bifurcation for the system of international law and its impact on domestic law.
Bederman: Law of the Land, Law of the Sea: The Lost Link Between Customary International Law and The General Maritime Law
This Article proposes a different way of thinking about the question of whether customary international law is the "law of the land." It looks back to the nineteenth century and to the once-parallel treatment of customary international law and general maritime law, finding that the two were linked closely by the end of the century. But, in the twentieth century, their treatment diverged dramatically as Supreme Court decisions "constitutionalized" the general maritime law and did not do the same for customary international law. General maritime law is supreme under Article VI of the Constitution and preempts contrary state law, but it does not automatically allow matters arising under it to be characterized as federal questions. This Article proposes that customary international law be re-linked to general maritime law and share both its status as "law of the land" and its implied preemption of state law.
Trade agreements originated as narrow bargains for mutual tariff reductions between countries. Over the years, however, their scope has expanded considerably. First, rules to address domestic laws that discriminated, both overtly and covertly, against foreign products were added, in order to ensure that tariff concessions were not circumvented. More recently, governments have negotiated trade agreement rules in a wide range of new areas, such as intellectual property protection, many of which have only a tenuous connection to "trade." On the basis of this expansion, combined with the development of strong and effective enforcement mechanisms, the modern international trade regime now functions as a limited form of "global governance." Partly as a result, the trade regime is in a precarious state today, with multilateral trade negotiations stalled and mass protests greeting many bilateral and multilateral negotiations. In this paper, I propose a framework for strengthening the regime, involving a more open and honest debate about the appropriate scope of the regime and re-focusing the trade regime on the core purpose of non-discrimination. As a corollary to this proposal, I argue that many of the issues that have been incorporated into trade agreements over the years should be addressed as part of a distributed and cooperative approach to global governance that involves other international organizations and softens the binding nature of the current trade rules in these areas.
Subjective rights of natural persons (as opposed to objective law) manifest the dignity of the human being. Human dignity is a cornerstone of international law since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. So the guarantee of (subjective) rights is an important element of the current international legal order. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that international law as it stands acknowledges the idea of international subjective rights, to explain this idea in doctrinal terms, to conceptualise the subjective international right theoretically, and finally justify this legal construct normatively. In the past decades, individuals have been awarded more and more international rights and obligations, notably outside the field of human rights. Additionally, the international human right to legal personality (Art. 6 UDHR, Art. 16 CCPR) is being progressively interpreted as embodying a human right to international legal personality. It is submitted that both legal trends, taken together, do not merely constitute a quantitative evolution, but have brought about a qualitative shift. The legal status of human beings is no longer merely derived from states, but is a foundational status in itself. Human beings have become “original” international legal subjects in a doctrinal sense. This novel construction has concrete legal consequences, notably with a view to access to justice, both on the domestic and on the international plane. Overall, the conceptualisation of a subjective international right symbolises the new international legal status of the human being, and is a doctrinal building-block of the so-called “humanisation” of international law.