- Symposium: The Turn to Authority beyond States: Political, Legal and Philosophical Perspectives
- Armin von Bogdandy, Foreword: The Promise of Authority
- Birgit Peters & Johan Karlsson Schaffer, Introduction: The Turn to Authority beyond States
- Henrik Enroth, The Concept of Authority Transnationalised
- Ingo Venzke, Between Power and Persuasion: On International Institutions’ Authority in Making Law
- Patrick Taylor Smith, Instrumentalism or Constitutivism: A Dilemma for Accounts of Transnational Political Authority
- Michal Onderco, Barbora Hola & Stijn Ruiter, Testing Detachment of International Criminal Tribunals: Empirical Evidence from the ICTY
- Simon Hentrei, Generalising the Principle of Complementarity: Framing International Judicial Authority
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
- Ludwig Weber & Artur Eberg, The Cape Town Convention and Its Implementation in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
- Ruwantissa Abeyratne, A Protocol to Amend the Tokyo Convention of 1963: Some Unanswered Questions
- Jeremias Prassl, Reforming Air Passenger Rights in the European Union
- Chloe A.S. Challinor, The Decision of the English High Court in Rogers & Anor v. Hoyle: Clipping the Wings of the Principles of Air Accident Investigation
- George N. Tompkins, Summary of MC99 Judicial Updates 2013
de Búrca, Kilpatrick, & Scott: Critical Legal Perspectives on Global Governance: Liber Amicorum David M Trubek
This book of essays, written in honour of Professor David Trubek, explores many of the themes which he has himself written about, most notably the emergence of a global critical discourse on law and its application to global governance. As law becomes ever more implicated in global governance and as processes related to and driven by globalisation transform legal systems at all levels, it is important that critical traditions in law adapt to the changing legal order and problématique. The book brings together critical scholars from the EU, and North and South America to explore the forms of law that are emerging in the global governance context, the processes and legal roles that have developed, and the critical discourses that have been formed. By looking at critical appraisals of law at the global, regional and national level, the links among them, and the normative implications of critical discourses, the book aims to show the complexity of law in today's world and demonstrate the value of critical legal thought for our understanding of issues of contemporary governance and regulation. Scholars from many countries contribute critical studies of global and regional institutions, explore the governance of labour and development policy in depth, and discuss the changing role of lawyers in global regulatory space.
International courts and national courts, politics and society
Conference in Copenhagen September 11-12 2014
Since the establishment of the first permanent international court in 1922, states have created more than 25 international judicial bodies. The trend toward international judicialization has accelerated after the end of the Cold War. States have established a cascade of international courts and tribunals, the mandates of which go well beyond peace and arbitration to cover issues as diverse as human rights, international criminal law, trade and investment. And new courts are being called for in issue-areas where they do not yet exist, such as the regulation of climate change or transnational corporate wrongdoing. Moreover, in some areas, courts have arguably managed to expand their authority beyond their original mandates, and engage not only in adjudicating, interpreting and monitoring international treaty compliance, but increasingly contribute to the making of international law.
This development suggests a number of challenging research puzzles, especially as international courts impact on domestic political orders. For instance, how do governments, parliaments, national courts, bureaucracies and other sub-state actors and institutions interact with the new authority of international courts? Under which conditions do they become effective nationally? And why have states decided to establish these international courts in the first place? Moreover, how do domestic agents resist, adapt to, or utilize international judicial institutions? How does this new and expanding international judiciary impact on established national constitutional democratic orders? And what role do international courts play in sustaining and developing the global order - and how does this role affect politics and society at large?
For this conference, we invite both political science, sociology and law papers that address both the impact of international judicial institutions on domestic legal and political orders that is the general trend toward international juridicialization and the domestic politics conditions under which states choose to adopt international case law, conventions and judicial institutions. We welcome papers aimed at empirical explanation or theoretical assessment, and particularly papers that have a comparative perspective. Whereas previous research on the domestic impact of international courts and conventions has so far primarily focused on autocracies, we are particularly interested in 'rule of law' countries as these must be expected to have fewer problems adopting international case law and conventions into their national legal order. Or do they? Very little research has in fact been asking and investigating this question.
Organizers: Johan Karlsson Schaffer, Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo & PluriCourts; Marlene Wind, Professor of Political Science and Centre Director for Centre for European Politics at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Copenhagen. She is also member of the leadership team and project coordinator at iCourts – Centre of Excellence for International Courts at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen) and Professor II at Oslo University with PluriCourts.
Please submit your paper proposal to: Zuzanna.Godzimirska@jur.ku.dk or Kristoffer.email@example.com by first of March 2014 at the latest.
ICourts may be able to help with accommodation if your abstract is accepted. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Call for Papers: Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Third Annual Conference (Reminder)
For more than 20 years, David Held has been one of the most prolific author on issues of world governance and globalization. His work is informed by cosmopolitan theory and the theory of democracy at the international level. In a critical perspective, David Held insists on the need to overcome the present framework of international relations in order to raise the challenges of economic globalization and of new global risks. In 2013, David Held has published Gridlock : Why Global Cooperation is Failing When We Need it Most, in which he attempts to analyse the reasons of the failure of currents forms of international cooperation, that is the reasons why the demand for international cooperation exceeds the ability of the multilateral order to supply it.
Università degli Studi di Cagliari
Dipartimento di diritto pubblico e di studi sociali
Call for papers for publication on:
“Conceptualising Accountability in
International Economic Law”
University of Cagliari (Italy)
Deadline for submissions of abstracts: 31/03/2014
The concept of accountability in international law is distinguished from the doctrine of responsibility and liability and refers to an ad hoc practice in international relations that seeks to ensure certain subjects do not escape with impunity when they violate norms that are considered fundamental to the interests of the international community as a whole.
Accountability has not yet acquired a clearly defined legal meaning. Originally conceived as a mechanism to be applied within the financial sphere, nowadays the concept of accountability takes different forms: judicial, political, administrative and – indeed – financial. In addition, accountability does not involve exclusively States, but also international institutions, Non-state actors and private entities – when such subjects have to respond of their performances.
Among the principal effects of the evolution of international law – and global economic relations – there is a greater focus on the relationship between rulers and ruled. The legitimacy of international rules thus begins to be determined, inter alia, by the level of accountability lying on those adopting them. This is even more so when rules and decisions are intended to affect consumers, entrepreneurs, workers and communities in general. In this scenario transparent, discrete and on-going legal constraints on particular actors and transactions may provide people an adequate opportunity to influence the content of norms impacting on them. For example, new sets of stakeholders are emerging in respect of international economic institutions such as IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO and claiming that the institutions should be accountable to them.
The growing demand for more participative processes of accountability is making it a topical issue and it is creating political and cultural debates among States and scholars.
Given these premises, purposes of this Volume are to shed light on aspects of accountability that have arisen in various areas of International Economic Law as well as to think over possible innovations and improvements from an international and comparative perspective.
We welcome submissions that describe new (previously unpublished), cutting-edge research in the following focus areas:
• Accountability and Law of International Development Banks
• Accountability and WTO Law
• Accountability and International Financial Law
• Accountability and International Environmental and Energy Law
• Accountability and Investment Law
• Accountability and International Development Aid Law
• Accountability and Multinational Enterprises
• Accountability and Non-governmental Organisations
• Accountability and UN Agencies
• Accountability and Regional Intergovernmental Organisations
• Accountability and Law-makers
Please submit to firstname.lastname@example.org a 500-word abstract in English, with indication of the author(s), their affiliation and full contact information.
By the first week of May 2014, the Editorial Board (Professor Francesco Seatzu, Dr. Paolo Vargiu and Mr. Federico Esu) will submit the selected papers for peer-review for inclusion in a collective publication by an international legal publisher.
Possibility for a Workshop
The Organising Committee is working towards organizing an International Workshop – which would be held in Cagliari, September/October 2014 – for the contributors to present their selected papers. Each session of the Workshop would feature an invited keynote speaker and would include three additional contributors, selected through this call.
Closing date for abstracts’ submission: 31/03/2014.
Acceptance of abstracts: 15/04/2014
Deadline for draft papers’ submission: 15/07/2014.
Deadline for selected final drafts’ submission: 31/07/2014
Francesco Seatzu, University of Cagliari; Paolo Vargiu, University of Leicester; Federico Esu, University of Cagliari.
Should you have any questions concerning the call or the workshop, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Federico Esu at email@example.com
Thursday, January 23, 2014
WOMEN IN WAR AND AT WAR:
18th – 19th September 2014 / University of Warwick
Call for papers
Women’s roles in war are complex and varied and are not limited to that of victims. During the Arab Spring, women took to the streets protesting against oppressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. We are also witnessing a significant rise in female political activism during conflict: many women increasingly find Internet, blogs and social media a useful tool to fight oppression, advocate change but also to report from war zones. Many women actively participate in combat, in regular armed forces but also as guerillas and, freedom fighters. They are also compelled to fight as girl child soldiers.
Sexual violence against women remains an alarming and disturbing feature of modern armed conflicts. This is despite the fact that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) prohibits rape and other forms of sexual violence in war and despite the major advances in International Criminal Law (ICL) in the punishment of gender crimes. Over the past two years, some further steps and initiatives have been taken at national and international level to address this problem. For instance, in June 2013 the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 2106 on sexual violence in conflict, calling (once again) for the prevention of sexual violence during conflicts. In April 2012, the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, launched the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, which resulted in adopting a G8 Declaration on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict and endorsing the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, which has been signed by 70% of UN Member States.
What impact have these measures had? Will they make a real difference? Have they had any impact on the way that armed conflict is conducted? How much can the law actually achieve? What do recent conflicts tell us about the contemporary representations of women in and at war?
This conference builds on the 2012 Women in War and at War conference held at Aberystwyth University and is designed to focus in particular on recent developments in relation to women and war.
Keynote speaker: Prof. Christine Chinkin, London School of Economics
We invite proposals for papers in the following or related areas:
- Women and the conflict in Syria
- Women, the Arab Spring and the aftermath
- International Humanitarian Law: effectiveness and challenges
- International Criminal Law and the prosecution of gender-related crimes
- Representations of women in and at war
- Women, war and the media
- Women in post-conflict settings
- Gender and conflict.
Abstracts of max. 250 words should be submitted by 15 February 2014 to firstname.lastname@example.org. Authors of selected abstracts will be informed by mid-March 2014.
The conference is jointly organised by the University of Warwick, Aberystwyth University and The Open University
In 1989, when the Cold War ended, there were six permanent international courts. Today there are more than two dozen that have collectively issued over thirty-seven thousand binding legal rulings. The New Terrain of International Law charts the developments and trends in the creation and role of international courts, and explains how the delegation of authority to international judicial institutions influences global and domestic politics.
The New Terrain of International Law presents an in-depth look at the scope and powers of international courts operating around the world. Focusing on dispute resolution, enforcement, administrative review, and constitutional review, Karen Alter argues that international courts alter politics by providing legal, symbolic, and leverage resources that shift the political balance in favor of domestic and international actors who prefer policies more consistent with international law objectives. International courts name violations of the law and perhaps specify remedies. Alter explains how this limited power--the power to speak the law--translates into political influence, and she considers eighteen case studies, showing how international courts change state behavior. The case studies, spanning issue areas and regions of the world, collectively elucidate the political factors that often intervene to limit whether or not international courts are invoked and whether international judges dare to demand significant changes in state practices.
- Jaci Eisenberg, The status of women: a bridge from the League of Nations to the United Nations
- Diana Panke, Getting ready to negotiate in international organizations? On the importance of the domestic construction of national positions
- Stefan Plenk, The uniting of East Africa and the uniting of Europe
- Malte Brosig, Interregionalism at a crossroads: African-European crisis management in Libya – A case of organized inaction?
- Yu Mincai, China's Responses to the Compulsory Arbitration on the South China Sea Dispute: Legal Effects and Policy Options
- Ramses Amer, China, Vietnam, and the South China Sea: Disputes and Dispute Management
- Bjarni Már Magnússon, The Rejection of a Theoretical Beauty: The Foot of the Continental Slope in Maritime Boundary Delimitations Beyond 200 Nautical Miles
- Yue Zhao & Yen-Chiang Chang, A Comparison of Ship-Recycling Legislation Between Chinese Law and the 2009 Hong Kong Convention
- Mary R. Brooks, The Changing Regulation of Coastal Shipping in Australia
- Philip E. Steinberg, Steering Between Scylla and Charybdis: The Northwest Passage as Territorial Sea
- Youri Van Logchem, Submarine Telecommunication Cables in Disputed Maritime Areas
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Oude Elferink: The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands: Arguing Law, Practicing Politics?
Alex G. Oude Elferink's detailed analysis of the negotiations between Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands concerning the delimitation of their continental shelf in the North Sea makes use of the full range of government archives in these three States. He looks at the role of international law in policy formulation and negotiations, and explores the legal context, political considerations and, in particular, oil interests which fed into these processes. He also explains why the parties decided to submit their disputes to the International Court of Justice and looks at the preparation of their pleadings and litigation strategy before the Court. The analysis shows how Denmark and The Netherlands were able to avoid the full impact of the implications of the Court's judgment by sidestepping legal arguments and insisting instead on political considerations.
- Jerzy Menkes, Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – Codification or Development?
- Bartłomiej Krzan, The International Responsibility of the European Union in the Light of the International Law Commission’s Codification Efforts
- Elżbieta Karska, Gaps in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Relation to Accountability Involving Private Military and Security Companies
- Jakub Kociubiński, Public Service Obligations in Air Transport Sector in the European Union
- Case Comment
- Michał Pyka, Sovereign Bonds as Investments? A Comment on the Abaclat and Ambiente Ufficio Decisions on Jurisdiction
- Zachary Douglas, Transposing the Principles Governing the Plea of Illegality in Commercial Arbitration into the Domain of Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Marc Henry, L’indépendance de l’arbitre au cœur du Juste et de l’Utile
- Caroline Duclerq, Les « nouveaux » coûts dans l’arbitrage international
How viable is the resolution of nuclear non-proliferation disputes through the International Court of Justice and international arbitration? James Fry examines the compromissory clauses in the IAEA Statute, IAEA Safeguards Agreements and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material that give jurisdiction to these fora and analyses recent jurisprudence to demonstrate how legal resolution can handle such politically sensitive disputes. In sum, legal resolution of nuclear non-proliferation disputes represents an option that States and commentators have all too often ignored. The impartiality and procedural safeguards of legal resolution should make it an acceptable option for target States and the international community, especially vis-à-vis the procedural shortcomings and general heavy-handedness of Security Council involvement under UN Charter Chapter VII.
The post Cold War proliferation of international adjudicatory bodies and international adjudication has had dramatic effects on both international law and politics, greatly affecting international relations, particularly economic relations, the enforcement of human rights, and the criminal pursuit of perpetrators of mass atrocities. International courts and tribunals have become, in some respects, the lynchpin of the modern international legal system. The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication uniquely brings together analysis of the legal, philosophical, ethical and political considerations brought about by these bodies. It provides an original and comprehensive understanding of the various forms of international adjudication. A series of cross-cutting chapters overview key issues in the field, both theoretical and practical, providing scholars, students, and practitioners with a detailed understanding of important legal and political influences within the international adjudicative process.
The Handbook is divided into six parts. The first part provides an overview of the origins and evolution of international adjudicatory bodies, from the nineteenth century to the present, highlighting the dynamics driving the multiplication of international adjudicative bodies and their uneven expansion. The second analyses the main families of international adjudicative bodies, providing a detailed study of state-to-state, criminal, human rights, regional economic, and administrative courts and tribunals, as well as arbitral tribunals and international compensation bodies. The third part lays out the theoretical approaches to international adjudication, including from political science, sociology, philosophy, ethics, and the perspectives of developing countries. The fourth part examines some contemporary issues in international adjudication, including the behavior, role, and effectiveness of international judges, the political constraints that restrict their function, as well as the making of international law by international courts and tribunals, the relationship between international and domestic adjudicators, the election and selection of judges, the development of judicial ethical standards, and the financing of international courts. The fifth part examines key actors in international adjudication, including international judges, legal counsels, international prosecutors, and registrars. Finally, the sixth provides an overview of some selected legal and procedural issues facing international adjudication, such as evidence, fact-finding and experts, jurisdiction and admissibility, the role of third parties, inherent powers, and remedies.
Of course, not every mention of 'materialism' yields the same kind of critical insight into the dialectics of historical processes. For all its undeniable sophistication and complexity, [Andrew] Lang’s concept of 'materialism' [in his World Trade Law After Neoliberalism: Reimagining the Global Economic Order (2011)] seems somehow shallow and fundamentally technocratic. The vision of international legal history it encourages us to develop is one populated by planners and policy makers responding to a series of external events. There seems to be very little space left for the discussion of the underlying structural social processes, such as the transformations in the global division of labour and the massive transfers of wealth, property, and political power that were implemented as part of the neoliberal turn. In other words, there seems to be no space left for the question of class struggle and its impact on the international political processes. And that, in our view, is why in the end Lang’s argument, despite all its depth and power, comes across as notably less convincing than it otherwise could have been. In this brief note, we would like to supplement Lang’s account of international trade law’s experience of the neoliberal turn by offering an alternative account grounded in a decidedly different sense of the causal relationship between the 'ideational' and the 'material'.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
2011 mandatierte der UN-Sicherheitsrat militärische Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung in Libyen. Eine Koalition unter der Führung von Frankreich und England legte dieses Mandat als Legitimation für den militärischen Sturz Gaddafis aus. Deutschland enthielt sich im Sicherheitsrat mit Russland und China der Stimme und beteiligte sich an dem Eingreifen nicht. In der deutschen Debatte streuen die Positionen weit: Auf der einen Seite sieht man im Beschluss des Sicherheitsrates und dem militärischen Vorgehen einen Schritt nach vorn in der völkerrechtlichen Umsetzung der sogenannten Responsibility to Protect, der Schutzverantwortung. Hier gilt die deutsche Stimmenthaltung als Versagen. Auf der anderen Seite wird die These vertreten, dass die Voraussetzungen für ein militärisches Eingreifen im Sinne der R2P nicht vorgelegen haben, der Sicherheitsrat also seine Kompetenz missbraucht habe. Hier interpretiert man die Stimmenthaltung als ein Festhalten an der grundlegenden Friedensorientierung der deutschen Sicherheitspolitik. Der vorliegende Band dokumentiert Flügelpositionen dieser Debatte. Mit Beiträgen von: Christian Tomuschat, Reinhard Merkel, August Pradetto und Bruno Schoch.
- Gleider I. Hernández, A Reluctant Guardian: The International Court of Justice and the Concept of ‘International Community’
- Bjørn Kunoy, The Delimitation of an Indicative Area of Overlapping Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf
- Surabhi Ranganathan, Between Philosophy and Anxiety? The Early International Law Commission, Treaty Conflict and the Project of International Law
- Eirik Bjorge, Right for the Wrong Reasons: Silih v Slovenia and Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis in the European Court of Human Rights
Chesterman: The International Court of Justice in Asia: Interpreting the Temple of Preah Vihear Case
This essay examines the 2013 decision by the International Court of Justice interpreting its 1962 judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case between Cambodia and Thailand, situating the more recent decision in the context of the Court’s evolving role in Asia. Only eight Asian states have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; only nine have ever appeared before it. The narrowness of the recent decision is of interest in part because of the modest role it ascribes to judicial institutions, but also for what this modesty heralds for the Court’s status in Asia. A key conclusion is that Asian states are likely to retain a general preference for bilateral resolution of disputes. For smaller disputes, however, especially those concerning subjects that cannot be divided or traded — such as a temple (and, as we shall see, an island) — the ICJ may play an important role.
Este trabajo proporciona una introducción al cultivo ius-internacionalista en la España del siglo XIX. La primera parte del mismo examina la supresión en España de los estudios del Derecho de Gentes a finales del siglo XVIII y apunta a algunos de sus desarrollos durante el primer tercio del siglo XIX. A continuación, el texto se detiene en el establecimiento en los años 40 de las primeras cátedras de Derecho internacional en Europa contra el trasfondo de la independencia de las Repúblicas latinoamericanas ypasa revista a ciertos hitos de la producción ius-internacionalista española durante la primera mitad del siglo XIX. La segunda parte examina el carácter y la evolución de los estudios jurídico-internacionales en España hasta 1883 cuando las cátedras de Derecho internacional público y privado fueron establecidas en siete universidades españolas además de la de Madrid. La tercera parte investiga cómo la producción ius-internacionalista española fue desarrollada por esta reforma profesionalizadora de 1883 y el efecto que tuvo el paralelo re-descubrimiento de la escuela de Salamanca, tanto en España, como en Europa en el último tercio del corto siglo diecinueve español. El examen del impacto que la recuperación del interés en Francisco de Vitoria tuvo en proporcionar a la academia ius-internacionalista española con una identidad cuasi-nacional conduce a ciertas conclusiones sobre el legado de la misma para el estudio del Derecho internacional en la cuna del primer Imperio de la Historia donde no se ponía el sol.
Oriented to provide a broad backdrop image of the cultivation of ius-internationalist studies in the Nineteenth Century Spain, the first part of this work revisits the suppression of studies of the Law of Peoples during the last part of the Eighteenth century and hints at some of its developments during the first third of the Nineteenth century before examining the establishment in the early 1840s of the first chairs of international law in Europe against the background of the independence of the Latin-American Republics and relates the development of Spanish international law production during the first half of the nineteenth century. The second part follows the character of the evolution of international legal studies in Spain until the year 1883 when chairs in Public International Law and Private International Law outside Madrid were established in seven other Spanish universities. The third part reviews the – albeit short-lived – first specialized international law journal ever established in Spain, and examines how Spanish production in the field was fostered by the professionalization reform of 1883. This part also deals with the Salamanca School’s parallel rediscovery in both Spain and Europe in the last third of the short Spanish nineteenth century. The impact that the revival of interest in Francisco de Vitoria had in providing Spanish international law academia with a quasi-national identity leads to some conclusions on its lasting legacy to the study of international law in the cradle of the first Empire in history on which the sun never set.
- Scientific Articles
- Cristina Genovese & Harmen van der Wilt, Fighting Impunity of Enforced Disappearances through a Regional Model
- George R. Lucas, Legal and Ethical Precepts Governing Emerging Military Technologies: Research and Use
- Andrew Szanajda, Restoring Administrations of Justice in Early Practice: American-Occupied Germany, 1945-1949
Monday, January 20, 2014
Zawati: Fair Labelling and the Dilemma of Prosecuting Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Tribunals
This scholarly legal work focuses on the dilemma of prosecuting gender-based crimes under the statutes of the international criminal tribunals with reference to the principle of fair labelling. In this book Hilmi M. Zawati explains how the abstractness and lack of accurate description of gender-based crimes in the statutory laws of the international criminal tribunals and courts infringe the principle of fair labelling, lead to inconsistent verdicts and punishments, and cause inadequate prosecution of these crimes. This inquiry deals with gender-based crimes as a case study, and with fair labelling as a legal principle and a theoretical framework.
Critical and timely, this study contributes to existing scholarship in many different ways. It is the first legal analysis to focus on the dilemma of prosecuting and punishing wartime gender-based crimes in the statutory laws of the international criminal tribunals and the ICC in the context of fair labelling. Moreover, it emphasizes that applying fair labelling to wartime gender-based crimes would enable the tribunals and the ICC to deliver fair judgments, eliminate inconsistent prosecution, overcome shortcomings in addressing gender-based crimes within their jurisprudence, while breaking the cycle of impunity for these crimes.
Consisting of two parts, this work begins by outlining the central focus and theoretical legal framework of the study. It concentrates on fair labelling as an imperative legal principle and a legal framework, examines its intellectual development, scope and justification, and illustrates its applicability to gender-based crimes. The second part addresses the dilemma of prosecuting gender-based crimes in the international criminal tribunals.
Conference: The History of Islamic International Law and the Intercultural Origins of the Law of Nations
This contribution aims to show that the dominance of formalism in treaty law is much more nuanced and qualified than the general perception sketched out in the preceding paragraph suggests. It will be argued that from its making to its termination, a treaty see-saws between formalism and flexibility, and that the body of rules designed by international lawyers to regulate the life of treaties mirrors this constant oscillation: the law of treaties, as codified in the two Vienna Conventions, displays both formal rationality and flexibility. This chapter aims to shed some light on the various, and disparate, features of this fundamental tension.
It is more specifically submitted here that the oscillation between formal rationality and flexibility comes to a head at three different levels: at the moment of the creation of the treaty, at the moment of its validation and identification as a treaty properly so-called and, finally, at the moment of its application, that is when the provisions of a treaty are confronted with the facts and accordingly need to be interpreted. At each of these stages, the tension between formal structures and flexibility is solved according to a different equilibrium. The different balances struck are themselves unstable and in a constant state of flux, for they are treaty-dependent and have not been definitively concretized by the rules of the Vienna Conventions. It is true that the constant oscillation between formalism and flexibility also infuses the rules on suspension and termination. However, as suspension and termination form the subject of a separate contribution, the ‘un-making’ of treaties will be addressed only briefly.
- Karen J. Alter, Laurence R. Helfer & Jacqueline R. McAllister, A New International Human Rights Court for West Africa: The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice
- Julian Davis Mortenson, The Travaux of Travaux: Is the Vienna Convention Hostile to Drafting History?
- In Memoriam
- Peter D. Trooboff, Detlev F. Vagts (1929–2013)
- Agora: Reflections on Kiobel
- Anupam Chander, Unshackling Foreign Corporations: Kiobel's Unexpected Legacy
- Julian G. Ku, Kiobel and the Surprising Death of Universal Jurisdiction Under the Alien Tort Statute
- Ralph G. Steinhardt, Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink
- Robert McCorquodale, Waving Not Drowning: Kiobel Outside the United States
- Caroline Kaeb & David Scheffer, The Paradox of Kiobel in Europe
- Vivian Grosswald Curran & David Sloss, Reviving Human Rights Litigation After Kiobel
- International Decisions
- Sherzod Shadikhodjaev, First WTO Judicial Review of Climate Change Subsidy Issues
- Clemens A. Feinäugle, Commission v. Kadi
- Jacob Katz Cogan, Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica v. Netherlands
- Amy Senier, TBB–Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg v. Germany
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- John R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Child soldiers were a central concern in the first decade of the International Criminal Court; indeed, the court’s first trial, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, dealt exclusively with the war crimes of conscripting, enlisting, and using child soldiers. This article compares the attention that the court has paid to children – an attention that serves the express terms of the ICC Statute – with the relative inattention in post-World War II international instruments such as the statutes of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. The article then analyzes the Lubanga conviction, sentence, and reparations rulings. It recommends that the ICC focus attention on all the ways that armed conflict affects children, as a means to advance goals of accountability, redress, and prevention.