Call for Papers
Beyond Responsibility to Protect: Towards Responsible Use of International Law?
University of Hull Law School, McCoubrey Centre for International Law
4- 5 July 2013, Hull, UK
Keynote Speaker: Professor Andre Nollkaemper, Professor of International Law, University of Amsterdam
The McCoubrey Centre for International Law is hosting a two-day conference for research students and early career scholars. The theme of the conference is "Beyond Responsibility to Protect: Towards Responsible Use of International Law?"
OVERVIEW: The key idea is that international law increasingly requires states not only to abstain from breaking the law, but also to pro-actively protect common interests or values of the international community. Seen from this perspective, sovereignty is not merely about rights, but also (perhaps, primarily) about duties; in particular, that States have a responsibility to take steps to prevent breaches of international law, especially the commission of heinous crimes.
The principal aim of the Conference is to explore these ideas in greater depth. An equally important goal is to critically evaluate and challenge the concept of R2P. Two approaches are of interest. One way would be to reject the narrow definition of R2P and question why R2P is only considered in the context of States, as an attribute of sovereignty. Today, the world is dominated by the action of the so-called "other" subjects of international law. Be they actors, subjects or, simply users of international law, these "players" are proven to be significantly influential at the international level. This opens the debate to the role of the private factor - and especially of multinational corporations - of international organisations entrusted with the responsibility to safeguard fundamental values, such as peace and security, as well as of the states that are hidden behind the institutional veil of the organisation. A second critical approach is to question the entire legal basis for R2P. Such a deconstructive approach could challenge the legal basis in positive international law of what may be seen as another expression of the ideology of droits-de-l'hommisme. Consideration may also be given to the principle of due diligence or the absence of a concept of state fault for failure to comply with obligations of means in the ILC Articles on State responsibility.
TOPICS: The conference will:
- investigate the legal foundations of R2P;
- assess the ways this concept is developing in international law;
- identify the areas or the regimes of international where this applies;
- examine the more technical questions surrounding the concept, such as jurisdiction and state responsibility;
- consider the means for the fulfilment and the limits of the obligation;
- explore critical challenges for the notion of R2P.
In addition to considering these themes, proposals are welcomed on topics including theories of the humanisation and the constitutionalisation of international law, and on how the themes relate to specific fields of international law, such as jus ad bellum, criminal law, humanitarian law, human rights, environmental law, cultural heritage, law of the sea, trade law, international organisations, EU law and investment law.
The McCoubrey Centre is very pleased to have Professor Andre Nollkaemper giving the keynote speech. In addition, all panels will be chaired by leading academics, who will be invited to comment on the papers.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Interested participants should provide an abstract of no more than 500 words by the 18th of March, 2013 to MCIL@hull.ac.uk. If you wish to discuss topics or ideas informally please contact the organising committee at this email address.
Presentations should be no longer than 20 minutes in duration. Speakers will be informed of acceptance of their papers by the 15th of April and will be expected to submit either a full or outline paper by the 15th of June.
THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE: Professor Richard Barnes; Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos; Mr Carmino Massarella; and Ms Nneka Okechukwu.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
- David L. Richards & Benjamin C. Carbonetti, Worth what we decide: a defense of the right to leisure
- Nuray Ibryamova, European Union political conditionality and minority rights: compliance in Bulgaria and Romania
- Luke Moffett, Reparative complementarity: ensuring an effective remedy for victims in the reparation regime of the International Criminal Court
- Christopher P. Banks & Joel R. Carbonell, International human education rights commitments in US courts
- Sonja Grover, Child soldiers as victims of ‘genocidal forcible transfer’: Darfur and Syria as case examples
- Iffath U.B. Syed, Forced Assimilation is an unhealthy policy intervention: the case of the hijab ban in France and Quebec, Canada
d'Aspremont: The Collective Security System and the Enforcement of International Law (or a Catharsis for the Austinian Imperatival Complex of International Lawyers)
After a few brief terminological remarks on the concepts of enforcement, coercion and sanction, this chapter will briefly recall the theoretical debates about the role of enforcement in our understanding of international law. A few observations will then be formulated as to how the creation of a collective security system regulating the use of force, irrespective of its actual enforcement function, came to upend the way in which enforcement of international law is understood by international lawyers. Taking into account recent developments pertaining to non-state actors, as well as targeted and smart sanctions, it will reevaluate the coercive role that can be performed by the collective security system. Finally, this chapter will explain how the various steps in the development of the collective security system and our understanding thereof directly impinge on how international law as a whole is perceived. The concluding remarks will invite some critical reflections on the need of a catharsis that will purge international lawyers’ “enforcement obsession” vis-à-vis their reading of the collective security system.
Call for Submissions: Reservations to Treaties
The editors of the International Community Law Review are pleased to announce a call for papers for a special issue of the journal on ‘Reservations to International Treaties’.
The International Community Law Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal, published quarterly by Brill/Nijhoff. The journal addresses all aspects of international law and the international community, and aims to explore the implications of various traditions of international law and how the international community uses and adapts international law to deal with new and emerging challenges.
Submissions are invited for the special issue on all aspects of the topic, particularly those commenting on the International Law Commission’s 2011 Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, and the report of Special Rapporteur Mr Alan Pellet. Areas of interest may include:
- The effect of impermissible reservations
- Temporal limitations on the lodging of objections to impermissible reservations
- The impact of interpretive declarations
- Reservations to human rights treaties
All those with an interest in the subject are invited to contribute articles for publication in the special issue. Proposals for papers should be should be no more than 15000 words, and be submitted to the editors here by 29th July 2014.
For further information please contact Sarah Singer at firstname.lastname@example.org
The concepts of statehood and self-determination provide the normative structure on which the international legal order is ultimately premised. As a system of law founded upon the issue of territorial control, ascertaining and determining which entities are entitled to the privileges of statehood continues to be one of the most difficult and complex issues. Moreover, although the process of decolonisation is almost complete, the principle of self-determination has raised new challenges for the metropolitan territories of established states, including the extent to which 'internal' self-determination guarantees additional rights for minority and other groups. As the controversies surrounding remedial secession have revealed, the territorial integrity of a state can be questioned if there are serious and persistent breaches of a people's human rights. This volume brings together such debates to reflect further on the current state of international law regarding these fundamental issues.
- Charles Fombad, An Overview of the Constitutional Framework of the Right to Social Security with Special Reference to South Africa
- Yonatan Tesfaye Fessha & Christophe Van der Beken, Ethnic Federalism and Internal Minorities: The Legal Protection of Internal Minorities in Ethiopia
- Marina Sharpe, Organization of African Unity and African Union Engagement with Refugee Protection: 1963–2011
- Sope Williams-Elegbe, The World Bank's Influence on Procurement Reform in Africa
- Yemi Oke, Substitute for the United Nations? Extending the Frontiers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Implications for African Unity
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Call for Applications: PluriCourts - Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order (Postdoctoral Fellows)
CALL FOR PAPERS
MELBOURNE JOURNAL of INTERNATIONAL LAW
FOCUS ISSUE: RETHINKING THE FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW — STATEHOOD AND SOVEREIGNTY
The Editors of the Melbourne Journal of International Law invite submissions for their second issue of 2013. 14(2) will focus on the concepts of the state and sovereignty, with emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to international legal theory.
In recent years, legal and political developments in the international arena — Kosovo’s unilateral secession from Serbia; the operation of de facto governments by breakaway states such as Ossetia and Abkhazia within the sovereign territory of Georgia; the recognition of ‘rebel’ governments in Libya and Syria; and the UN General Assembly’s recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state — have posed new challenges to these foundational concepts of international law.
Simultaneously, scholars drawing on diverse theoretical traditions have established a sophisticated literature that reveals some of the many tensions implicit in the history and practice of international law. 14(2) will develop this conversation by inviting scholarship — in the form of articles, commentaries, case notes and book reviews — analysing contemporary jurisprudential questions raised by ‘the state’ and ‘sovereignty’.
Articles should be in the vicinity of 8 000 to 20 000 words in length and be an original and detailed contribution to international law scholarship. Commentaries explore recent developments in a specific field of international law and their practical applications, and should be between 5 000 and 8 000 words in length.
The submissions deadline for 14(2) is 1 July 2013, and the Issue will be published in November.
All articles, case notes, commentaries and review essays published in MJIL are subjected to a double-blind refereeing process, involving at least two specialists in the field. Once accepted for publication, submissions will then be edited for compliance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation. Authors have an opportunity to review the final version of the piece prior to publication. More information on the submissions process can be found at our website.
The MJIL publication policy can be accessed here.
All submissions should be sent to email@example.com in Word format, together with a signed publication policy.
This paper examines three basic models for resolving investment disputes between developed countries: (1) allowing investors to bring direct claims against host governments without exhausting their remedies in domestic courts as in NAFTA Chapter 11; (2) prohibiting direct investor claims and allowing only state-to-state dispute resolution as in the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement; and (3) allowing arbitration of direct investor claims only after exhaustion of domestic remedies as in the Hong Kong-U.K. Bilateral Investment Treaty. The paper argues that the third option is worth serious consideration.
- Katie Sykes, "Nations Like Unto Yourselves": An Inquiry into the Status of a General Principle of International Law on Animal Welfare
- Sara L. Seck, Canadian Mining Internationally and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights
- Athanasios Yupsanis, The International Labour Organization and Its Contribution to the Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
- Alberto Alvarez-Jimenez, Private Rights, the Use of Maps, State Responsibility, and Other Issues in the International Court of Justice’s Boundary Jurisprudence: 2000-10
- Ashley Barnes & Christopher Waters, The Arctic Environment and International Humanitarian Law
- Notes and Comments
- Matthieu Aldjima Namountougou, Responsabilité pénale des agents ou fonctionnaires internationaux et immunité de jurisdiction
- Avinash Sharma, The Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty: The European Union in Retrospect and Prospect
- The Editors, Leslie C. Green (1920-2011)
- Donald M. McRae, Charles B. Bourne (1921-2012)
- Special Theme: International Criminal Justice in Africa
- Roland Adjovi, L'Afrique et le droit international pénal
- James Mouangue Kobila, L'Afrique et les jurisdictions internationales pénales
- Mouloud Boumghar, Quelques utilisations des principes generaux du droit international et des principles généraux de droit en international pénal
- Ottavio Quirico, General Principles in International Criminal Law and their Relevance to Africa
- Koffi K.A. Afande, Les commissions (inter)nationales d'enquête en vue de l'établissement des faits en maitière de justice pénale (inter)nationale ou les « anti-chambres des mise en accusation »
- Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi, International Criminal Tribunals and Life Imprisonment: Which Theory of Punishment is Emphasized?
- General Articles
- Hélène de Pooter, The Obligation to Prevent Genocide: A Large Shell Yet to Be Filled
- Abderrezak Seghiri, Les instruments conventionnels de protection des droits de l'homme dans l'ordre juridique algérien : évolution textuelle et stagnation factuelle
- Notes and Comments
- Edward R. McMahon, International Organizations and Peer Review: Assessing the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council
- Raphael Tiwang Watio, Affaire Hissène Habré : Où en est la justice ?
- Amboko Wameyo, Transitional Justice, A Two-Prong Approach: Reconciliation and Criminal Responsibility for Kenya Post-2007 Election Violence
- Susan Benesch, The ICTR's Prosecution of a Pop Star: The Bikindi Case
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
- Časlav Pejović, Article 47(2) of the Rotterdam Rules: solution of old problems or a new confusion?
- Wouter Verheyen, Fleximodal contracts and CMR: the Belgian approach
- Jonathan Wennekers, Issues of modern piracy in marine insurance law: a comparative study of English and German law
- Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The Judicial Task of Administering Justice in Trade and Investment Law and Adjudication
- David Pavot, The Use of Dictionary by the WTO Appellate Body: Beyond the Search of Ordinary Meaning
- W. Michael Reisman, The Diversity of Contemporary International Dispute Resolution: Functions and Policies
- Jon Bae, Review of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism Under the International Civil Aviation Organization: Contradiction of Political Body Adjudication
- Mihaela Papa, Emerging Powers in International Dispute Settlement: From Legal Capacity Building to a Level Playing Field?
- Chang-Fa Lo, The Proper Interpretation of ‘Disguised Restriction on International Trade’ under the WTO: The Need to Look at the Protective Effect
- V.V. Veeder, From Florence to London via Moscow and New Delhi: How and Why Arbitral Ideas Migrate
- Friedrich Rosenfeld, Mass Claims in International Law
- Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira, The Authority of Domestic Courts in Adjudicating International Investment Disputes: Beyond the Distinction Between Treaty and Contract Claims
- Caroline Henckels, Balancing Investment Protection and the Public Interest: The Role of the Standard of Review and the Importance of Deference in Investor–State Arbitration
Does international law's effectiveness require a clear distinction between law and non-law? This essay, which reviews Jean d'Aspremont's Formalism and the Sources of International Law, argues the answer is no. Ambiguity about the legal nature of international instruments has important benefits. Clarity in the law may encourage states to do the minimum necessary to comply, while some uncertainty about what the law requires may induce states to take extra efforts to ensure they are in compliance. Ambiguity in the law also promotes dynamic change, an important feature in rapidly developing areas of the law such as international environmental law and human rights. Most importantly, though, soft law — international instruments that have legal consequences but are not unambiguously "law" — expands the range of instruments available to states when cooperating. Institutionalist theories of international law suggest that a larger menu of international instruments is valuable because it allows states to calibrate the level of their commitments more precisely, thereby expanding their ability to cooperate. Institutional theories, however, have heretofore not explained exactly how states communicate to each other the level of their commitment; that is, they have not explained how states mark an instrument as soft law and whether and how states distinguish between types of soft law commitments. A theory of law-identification based on linguistic norms, such as d'Aspremont proposes, offers a descriptive account of how states might signal levels of legal commitment beyond the dichotomy of "binding" and "non-binding" law. A communicative theory of international law — one based on the use of language in international instruments to signal relatively fine-grained variation in the level of commitment — thus would enrich our understanding of what soft law is, and when and how states use it.
Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a treaty is void if it conflicts with jus cogens. It is theoretically possible that two or more states would conclude such a treaty, yet this is not very likely in practice. The question thus arises how jus cogens operates outside of Article 53 situations and outside of treaty law in general. A ‘trumping effect’ of jus cogens over all other norms of international law has been proposed in some writings and judicial decisions. Such views have been shattered by the ICJ, most recently (but not exclusively) in Germany v. Italy. Jus cogens seems to be back to Article 53 and its (rather theoretical) voiding powers. Considering the latest judicial decisions, this article aims to place jus cogens within the international legal system. It demonstrates that jus cogens is not a futile concept; but it is wrong to see it as a trump card.
Salacuse: The Three Laws of International Investment: National, Contractual, and International Frameworks for Foreign Capital
International investments are governed by three different legal frameworks: 1) national laws of both the host country and the investor's home country; 2) contracts, whether between the investor and the host country or among investors and their associates; and 3) international law, consisting of applicable treaties, customs, and general principles of law. Together, these three frameworks profoundly influence the organization, operation, and protection of foreign investments. Investors, government officials, and their legal counsel must therefore understand the complex interaction among these frameworks and how best to employ them to advance their interests.
This book examines the content of each of these three legal frameworks for international investment and explores how they influence the foreign investment process and the nature of investment transactions, projects, and enterprises. The book is divided into five parts. Part I, after explaining the contemporary nature and significance of international investment, examines the theoretical and practical links between law and the investment process. Part II explores the nature of national laws regulating foreign investment. Part III considers of the various contractual frameworks for international investments, looking at their negotiation, content, and stability. Part IV sets out the international legal framework governing foreign investment, focusing on the content and nature of investment treaties and on general principles. Finally, Part V discusses how the three legal frameworks interact with each other. By comprehensively examining each of the applicable legal frameworks, this book provides a vital overview of the laws, rules, and regulations governing foreign investment for lawyers, scholars, students, and government officials. Three different legal frameworks are applicable to foreign investment: the laws of the host state and the investor's home country, the contract between the host state and the investor, and the rules and principles of international investment law. These three bodies of law interact with each other and must be analysed together when interpreting an investment agreement or arbitrating a dispute. This book examines the content of each of these three legal frameworks and explores how they influence the flow of foreign investment.
The book is divided into five parts. Part I, after explaining the contemporary nature and significance of international investment, examines the theoretical and practical links between law and the investment process. Part II explores the nature of national laws regulating foreign investment. Part III explores the nature of the contractual framework for international investments, looking at their negotiation, content, and stability. Part IV sets out the international legal framework governing foreign investment, focusing on the content and nature of bilateral investment treaties and on general principles. Finally, Part V considers how the three legal frameworks interact with each other.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Stephan: Courts on Courts: Contracting for Engagement and Indifference in International Judicial Encounters
This paper explores the dynamics of international judicial interactions in civil cases. It proposes a positive model of court-on-court encounters based on contract theory. It argues that this model provides a superior account of these interactions compared to the prevailing account. The dialogue model developed by international relations specialists and international lawyers posits transnational judicial networks that engage judges in a constitutive and constructive project of building the global rule of law. The paper demonstrates that this model does not capture contemporary judicial practice, rests on outmodes historical judgments, and is normatively problematic. Contract theory not only explains contemporary judicial practice, but also is normatively attractive as a basis for international and transnational judicial interactions.
ASIL INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TECHNOLOGY INTEREST GROUP
CALL FOR PAPERS
The American Society of International Law’s International Law and Technology Interest Group (ILTechIG) is delighted to announce its inaugural works-in-progress workshop, to be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2013, at ASIL's Tillar House Headquarters (2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW) in Washington, D.C. The workshop will follow ASIL’s 107th Annual Meeting, which will take place on April 3-6.
Papers should address an issue at the intersection of international law and technology. Possible topics might include, for example, the regulation of data and privacy in trade regimes; the use of new technologies in warfare; technological challenges affecting environmental regulation; the regulation of cyberspace; the role of technology in advancing human rights; or the effect of technology on the practice of international law. More information about the ILTechIG and its mandate is available on its ASIL webpage.
Preference will be given to the submissions of ASIL Members and members of ILTechIG. (Membership in an interest group is free and can be selected from within the membership section of the ASIL website.) Preference will also be given to papers that have not yet been published. We encourage submissions from practitioners and junior scholars and hope to accommodate as many proposals as possible.
Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract of not more than one page to firstname.lastname@example.org by March 1, 2013. Proposals should indicate the author’s name, phone number, email address, and institutional affiliation and describe the anticipated state of the paper at the time of the conference (i.e., published or unpublished, complete or incomplete).
Proposals will be reviewed by the ILTechIG leadership: Co-Chairs Anupam Chander (UC Davis) and Molly Land (NYLS), Vice Chair and Co-Chair Elect Paul Schiff Berman (George Washington), and Secretary/Treasurer Greg McNeal (Pepperdine). Individuals whose papers have been selected for the workshop will be notified by March 8, 2013.
To defray the cost of meals during the workshop, participants will be asked to pay a conference fee: $50 for ASIL members and $65 for non-members. A discounted rate of $55 is available for public sector non-member attendees. The ILTechIG cannot fund the cost of travel for participants.
- Malgosia Fitzmaurice & Christian J. Tams, Introduction
- Christian J. Tams, The Contentious Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court
- Marika Giles Samson & Douglas Guilfoyle, The Permanent Court of International Justice and the ‘Invention’ of International Advisory Jurisdiction
- Panos Merkouris, The Advisory Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Justice in Practice: A Tale of Two Scopes
- Stephan Wittich, The PCIJ and the Modern International Law of Treaties
- Catherine Brölmann, The PCIJ and International Rights of Groups and Individuals
- Ursula Kriebaum, The PCIJ and the Protection of Foreign Investments
- Joanna Gomula, The Heritage of the Permanent Court of International Justice in WTO Jurisprudence
- Iain Scobbie, The Permanent Court of International Justice, Arbitration, and Claims Commissions of the Inter-War Period
- Jean d’Aspremont, The Permanent Court of International Justice and Domestic Courts: A Variation in Roles
- Anneliese Quast Mertsch, The Relationship Between the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Permanent Court of International Justice, and Its Signicance for International Law
- Akbar Rasulov, The Doctrine of Sources in the Discourse of the Permanent Court of International Justice
- Photini Pazartzis, Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint: The PCIJ’s Lotus Case
- Antonios Tzanakopoulos, The Permanent Court of International Justice and the ‘International Community’
- Roman Kwiecień, The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Constitutional Dimension of International Law: From Expectations to Reality
- Ole Spiermann, The Legacy of the Permanent Court of International of International Justice – On Judges, Scholars, and Also on Bishops and Clowns
- Patricio Díaz Gavier & Eric Van Dooren, Criminal Customs Law in Belgium and the Consequences for Customs Debt Recovery
- Ts’otetsi Makong & Peter Lunenborg, An African Group Perspective on the WTO Negotiations: Progress in 2012 and Looking Ahead to MC9 in 2013
- James J. Nedumpara, Export Credits and ‘Safe Haven’ Provisions under the WTO SCM Agreement: A Case of False Safety?
- Alice Edwards, Temporary Protection, Derogation and the 1951 Refugee Convention
- Tiyanjana Maluwa, Ratification of African Union Treaties by Member States: Law, Policy and Practice
- Ben Saul, Dark Justice: Australia’s Indefinite Detention of Refugees on Security Grounds under International Human Rights Law
- Rachel Slater, Gender Violence or Violence against Women? The Treatment of Forced Marriage in the Special Court for Sierra Leone
- Case Note
- Lucas Bastin, International Law and the International Court of Justice’s Decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State
- Donald Feaver & Benedict Sheehy, Climate Policy and Border Adjustment Regulation: Designing a Coherent Response
- Ingrid Wuerth, International Law in Domestic Courts and the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State Case
Monday, February 18, 2013
The manifest inadequacies of the inter-state negotiating processes central to international climate change policy create a pressing need for innovative modes of governance. This paper proposes one promising and feasible approach: constructing a transnational climate change regime. A transnational regime would forge stronger cross-border links among non-state actors and organizations, allowing them to address climate issues in a coordinated and collaborative manner. It would operate at multiple levels of authority and scale, enabling transnational institutions to directly engage and address intra-governmental, sub-state and societal actors within target countries. In this way the regime would bypass the governments of recalcitrant states, and of states lacking governance capacity. A transnational regime would also manage recalcitrant states by focusing advocacy, creating demonstration effects and otherwise mobilizing pressure on governments. Transnational regime entrepreneurs using a strategy of orchestration could deploy a range of incentives and other tools of influence to enroll, support and steer participating organizations, and to encourage public and private targets to accept voluntary standards and programs. The regime would complement inter-state actions where they exist, and would partially substitute for them where they do not.
- Noam Schimmel, The Place of Human Rights in American Efforts to Expand and Universalize Healthcare
- Lantz Fleming Miller, Rights of Self-delimiting Peoples: Protecting Those Who Want No Part of Us
Dependent Archipelagos in the Law of the Sea examines the archipelagic concept in international law of the sea with respect to dependent archipelagos, both coastal and outlying. The monograph offers a thorough examination of the regime of straight baselines, and the implications arising from their application to archipelagos. It further analyses the practice of States with regard to the delimitation of the maritime zones of archipelagos, and assesses its value both as an element contributing to the interpretation of the Law of the Sea Convention - especially related to the application of article 7 - and as a factor leading to new developments in international law with an emphasis on customary law.
- Yuval Shany, Seeking Domestic Help: The Role of Domestic Criminal Law in Legitimizing the Work of International Criminal Tribunals
- Symposium: Drone Wars
- Jens David Ohlin, Is Jus in Bello in Crisis?
- Larry May, Targeted Killings and Proportionality in Law: Two Models
- Noam Lubell & Nathan Derejko, A Global Battlefield?: Drones and the Geographical Scope of Armed Conflict
- Kevin Jon Heller, ‘One Hell of a Killing Machine’: Signature Strikes and International Law
- Symposium: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’ for Human Rights Reparations?
- Micaela Frulli, Foreword
- Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Human Rights: Is There a Future after Germany v. Italy?
- Andrew Dickinson, Germany v. Italy and the Territorial Tort Exception: Walking the Tightrope
- Chimène I. Keitner, Germany v. Italy and the Limits of Horizontal Enforcement: Some Reflections from a United States Perspective
- Giuseppe Nesi, The Quest for a ‘Full’ Execution of the ICJ Judgment in Germany v. Italy
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Dire Tladi, The ICC Decisions on Chad and Malawi: On Cooperation, Immunities, and Article 98
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Legislation and Cases
- Devika Hovell, The Gulf between Tortious and Torturous: UK Responsibility for Mistreatment of the Mau Mau in Colonial Kenya
- Patrick Hayden & Katerina I. Kappos, Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals
The theme of the 5th Research Forum is International Law as a Profession. The Forum will allow the professional community to gain new insights on how to address the new challenges facing international law in the globalized environment of the second decade of the 21st century.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Oriolo & Vigorito: L’« EAU ». Questions juridiques et économiques concernant la gestion, l’utilisation et la protection des « ressources hydriques »
Ce volume collecte les actes du Colloque international sur « L’eau » qui a eu lieu à Marseille le 10 février 2012 et qui a été organisé – dans le cadre des Rencontres du droit économique de l’environnement – par l’Institut Pluridisciplinaire de l'Eau et de l’Environnement (IPEE) de l’Université Aix-Marseille, en coopération avec le Centre de droit économique et la Société d’exploitation du réseau d’assainissement de Marseille (SERAM). Il s’agit de contributions ayant un contenu soit juridique soit économiquequi examinent, dans une perspective internationale et comparée, les thématiques concernant la gestion, la protection et l’utilisation des ressources en eau.
Since the "surge" in Iraq in 2006, counterinsurgency effectively became America's dominant approach for fighting wars. Yet many of the major controversies and debates surrounding counterinsurgency have turned not on military questions but on legal ones: Who can the military attack with drones? Is the occupation of Iraq legitimate? What tradeoffs should the military make between self-protection and civilian casualties? What is the right framework for negotiating with the Taliban? How can we build the rule of law in Afghanistan?
The Counterinsurgent's Constitution tackles this wide range of legal issues from the vantage point of counterinsurgency strategy. Ganesh Sitaraman explains why law matters in counterinsurgency: how it operates on the ground and how law and counterinsurgency strategy can be better integrated. Counterinsurgency, Sitaraman notes, focuses on winning over the population, providing essential services, building political and legal institutions, and fostering economic development. So, unlike in conventional war, where law places humanitarian restraints on combat, law and counterinsurgency are well aligned and reinforce one another. Indeed, following the law and building the rule of law is not just the right thing to do, it is strategically beneficial. Moreover, reconciliation with enemies can both help to end the conflict and preserve the possibility of justice for war crimes. Following the rule of law is an important element of success. >