- Yannick Radi, In Defence of ‘Generalism’ in International Legal Scholarship and Practice
- International Legal Theory
- Geoffrey Gordon, Innate Cosmopolitan Dialectics at the ICJ: Changing Perceptions of International Community, the Role of the Court, and the Legacy of Judge Álvarez
- Nikolas M. Rajkovic, Rules, Lawyering, and the Politics of Legality: Critical Sociology and International Law's Rule
- International Law and Practice
- Erika de Wet, The Evolving Role of ECOWAS and the SADC in Peace Operations: A Challenge to the Primacy of the United Nations Security Council in Matters of Peace and Security?
- Steven Wheatley, Conceptualizing the Authority of the Sovereign State over Indigenous Peoples
- Lisa Toohey, Accession as Dialogue: Epistemic Communities and the World Trade Organization
- Pietro Sullo, Lois Mémorielles in Post-Genocide Societies: The Rwandan Law on Genocide Ideology under International Human Rights Law Scrutiny
Hague International Tribunals: International Court of Justice
- Eleni Polymenopoulou, Cultural Rights in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice
- Hague International Tribunals: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Ignaz Stegmiller, Legal Developments in Civil Party Participation at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
- Emma Irving, The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and its Host State: The Impact on Human Rights
- Alexia Solomou, Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
- Ömer Faruk Direk, Responsibility in Peace Support Operations: Revisiting the Proper Test for Attribution Conduct and the Meaning of the ‘Effective Control’ Standard
- Joris Larik, The Kadi Saga as a Tale of ’Strict Observance’ of International Law: Obligations Under the UN Charter, Targeted Sanctions and Judicial Review in the European Union
- Zhu Dan, China, the International Criminal Court, and International Adjudication
- André J. Berends, Why Overriding Mandatory Provisions that Protect Financial Stability Deserve Special Treatment
- Judith Goldstein & Robert Gulotty, America and Trade Liberalization: The Limits of Institutional Reform
- Stephen C. Nelson, Playing Favorites: How Shared Beliefs Shape the IMF's Lending Decisions
- Susan D. Hyde & Nikolay Marinov, Information and Self-Enforcing Democracy: The Role of International Election Observation
- Stephen C. Nelson & Peter J. Katzenstein, Uncertainty, Risk, and the Financial Crisis of 2008
- J. Lawrence Broz & Seth H. Werfel, Exchange Rates and Industry Demands for Trade Protection
- Hun Joon Kim & J.C. Sharman, Accounts and Accountability: Corruption, Human Rights, and Individual Accountability Norms
- Research Notes
- Charli Carpenter, Sirin Duygulu, Alexander H. Montgomery & Anna Rapp, Explaining the Advocacy Agenda: Insights from the Human Security Network
- Mark S. Copelovitch & Tonya L. Putnam, Design in Context: Existing International Agreements and New Cooperation
- Marcin Kałduński & Taduesz Wasilewski, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Maritime Delimitation: The Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case
- Øystein Jensen, The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: An Administrative, Scientific, or Judicial Institution?
- Geir Hønneland, Compliance and Postagreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea Fisheries
- Yoshifumi Tanaka, A Note on the M/V “Louisa” Case
- Montserrat Abad Castelos, Marine Renewable Energies: Opportunities, Law, and Management
In retrospect, NATO and EU enlargements can be viewed as easy; they admitted states that wanted to be involved and were lavishly rewarded. In contrast, this study explores the harder politics waged by the much larger regional organizations, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). These organizations lack material incentives or instruments of coercion, instead having to work on the basis of shared values. They also face a variety of threats from recalcitrant members. In this book, Fawn uniquely uses internal conditionality to explain how these organizations have cleverly and subtly responded to such difficulties.
Drawing on interviews in a range of post-communist countries and with practitioners inside and outside the organizations, the diverse case studies in this book examine issues of conflict, democratization, the death penalty, rewarding high office and retaining institutional membership. Fawn explores how international organizations which lack powers of compulsion can respond to threatening member-states and offers practical lessons for the international promotion of norms.
The time is ripe both to revisit the foundations of international law and to imagine its possible futures. Once the preserve of a small community of specialised academics and practitioners, international law increasingly plays an important role in cases decided by national courts; it is at the centre of renewed interest by political and legal theorists; and in many countries (Britain among them) it even shapes public argument on foreign policy, national security and the resort to armed force. Amidst these developments one finds different methodological approaches seeking to explain the role of international law, as well as different instrumental camps using international law to advocate particular priorities.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
- Olivier Delgrange & Martin Riedel, Die „rupture brutale“ gefestigter Geschäftsbeziehungen mit einem französischen Geschäftspartner
- Karl-Heinz Thume, Zur Anwendbarkeit des § 92c HGB im Vertriebsrecht
21st Century borders are coming under increasing strain with shifting balances of international power. This was seen most dramatically in the recent Russian annexation of the Crimea, but also in continuing tensions in East Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. This conference, organised by the Centre for International Law and Human Rights at Lancaster University Law School will explore the causes and dynamics of contemporary territorial disputes as well as mechanisms to resolve them.
Building on our initial call for papers, we welcome abstracts for papers of no more than one page from both established researchers and early career academics on the themes of: critical perspectives on uti possidetis; the concept of the “border” in light of new technologies and transnational structures; historical and cultural perspectives on international borders; borders and international economic and environmental law; institutional mechanisms for territorial dispute settlement; and secession and borders.
Please send your proposals to Dr. James Summers firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for abstracts is Wednesday 7th May 2014.
- Symposium: William Twining's Montesquieu Lecture on "Globalisation and Legal Scholarship"
- Peer Zumbansen, Why Global Law is Transnational: Remarks on the Symposium around William Twining's Montesquieu Lecture
- Phillip Paiement & Willem Witteveen, Global Situation Sense
- Ming-Sung Kuo, A Dubious Montesquieuian Moment in Constitutional Scholarship: Reading the Empirical Turn in Comparative Constitutional Law in the Light of William Twining and his Hero
- Jessica Eisen, Perspectives on the Global: A Reflection on Twining's Globalisation and Legal Scholarship
- Dan Priel, Two Models of General Jurisprudence
- Eve Darian-Smith, Locating a Global Perspective
- Ali Hammoudi, Re-Constituting the Hegemony of Western Law in the Third World: A Postcolonial Critique of Twining's 'General Jurisprudence'
- Basil Ugochukwu, From Reaction to Agency: A 'Subaltern' Response to William Twining's Globalisation and Legal Scholarship
- Terrine Friday, Reorienting the 'Global' in Legal Theory: Reading Temporal Methods into Twining's Proximal Analysis
- Maria Panezi, Mapping the Territory: Contextual Jurisprudence, Legal Pluralism and WTO Law and Development
- Derek McKee, Globalisation, Legal Ideas, and the Creation of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime
- Marco A. Velásquez-Ruiz, Globalisation and Legal Scholarship in Colombia: Petit commentaire on William Twining's 2009 Montesquieu Lecture
- Vanisha H. Sukdeo, Global Legal Scholarship and Interdisciplinarity
- Brendan Jowett, Turbulent Transitions: Implementing Global Perspectives in Legal Education
- Sas Ansari, Globalisation and Legal Scholarship: William Twining's Call for Revolutionary Jurisprudence
- Morag Goodwin, Embracing the Challenge: Legal Scholarship in a Global Era
- Keith Culver & Michael Giudice, Complementing Comparison: Renewing Analytical Legal Theory to Meet the Explanatory Challenge of Globalisation
- William Twining, Globalisation and Legal Scholarship: A Response
Third World Approaches to International Law Conference
On Praxis and the Intellectual
The American University in Cairo
Egypt, 22 - 24 February 2015
CALL FOR PAPERS AND PANEL PROPOSALS
The first TWAIL conference in the global South will be held in Cairo from 22 to 24 February 2015. In the context of the ongoing revolutionary processes across the Middle East and North Africa, the thematic focus of the conference is that of the intellectual as a political actor: the animation of praxis, broadly conceived as reflection, agitation, and transformative action.
The theme necessitates self-reflection as TWAIL has sought to distinguish itself from other critical legal approaches through its political and transformative commitments. We invite presentations and panels that seek to engage with these issues. For instance, how do we understand and interrogate our roles as intellectuals in political life? What is the relationship between our scholarly endeavors and societal structures; whether preserving the status quo, shaping reform, or advocating for radical change? What are the various conduits that link our work as intellectuals with politicians, activists, advocates, revolutionaries, civil servants, soldiers, artists, writers, union representatives, civil society leaders, peasant movements, and so on? How does the idea of TWAIL as praxis relate to TWAIL as theory and/or method? How does it differ from other notions of praxis?
As with previous TWAIL conferences, this is an opportunity for us to take stock and look to the future. It provides a forum for the TWAIL community to reconnect – this time in the global South. At the same time, the conference seeks to deepen and re-imagine engagement with underexplored alliances such as with indigenous movements, environmental issues, and transnational intellectual and political actors in the Middle East and North Africa. To this end, the conference also seeks to pursue relationships with potential interdisciplinary allies, whether scholars or practitioners, in cognate fields.
We welcome submissions of proposed presentations or panels (composed of three speakers) relating to the above themes. Applications should include:
- An abstract of your proposed presentation (300 words maximum) or panel (900 words maximum).
- Your name(s), institutional affiliation(s), and contact information.
Applications should be emailed to email@example.com by 15 July 2014.
The conference will be hosted by the Department of Law at the American University in Cairo, with the support of the National University of Ireland Maynooth, the University of Windsor, and Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. Limited ground transportation and all conference catering, materials, and activities will be covered by the host organizations. A limited amount of funding for travel costs and accommodation will be available to assist presenters based in the global South on the basis of financial need. Please indicate at the time of submission if you will need such assistance.
We look forward to seeing you in Cairo.
Call for Papers: The Changing Practices of International Law: Sovereignty, Law and Politics in a Globalising World
– Call for Papers –
The Changing Practices of International Law:
Sovereignty, Law and Politics in a Globalising World
Reykjavik, 27-29 August 2014
workshop co-organised by
COST Action IS1003 ’International Law between Constitutionalisation and Fragmentation’
in cooperation with Bifrost University and the Centre for the Politics of Transnational Law
This interdisciplinary workshop explores this paradox of international legalisation increasing the room for political manoeuvre in international relations by examining how the proliferation of legal regimes and its various mechanisms are utilized by sovereign states to bolster political positions and barter off responsibilities under international law. We invite papers that analyse how the increasing legalisation of international politics both changes the obligations of states under international law, yet at the same time, and through its own proliferation, provides the backdrop for governmental strategies to instrumentalise legal discourse and/or elude legal obligations.
In particular we are interested in papers that focus on a particular issue area (such as bilateral investment treaties/global financing, international environmental law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, law of the sea) to analyse the legal strategies states use to instrumentalise or escape international law within these particular areas. These include, but are not limited to:
- judicial jurisdiction shopping
- territorial jurisdiction shopping
- regime shopping
- offshore law enforcement
- privatisation and outsourcing
- strategic influencing legal interpretation
A collection of the papers presented at the workshop will be published as an edited volume. Presenters that do not wish to submit their paper for this publication should clearly indicate so.
This research workshop is generously funded by COST Action IS1003. This means that there is no conference fee. For COST Action IS1003 members the usual reimbursement rules apply.
Please send your abstract of about 300 words to Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Tanja Aalberts (email@example.com). Deadline 19 May 2014. The selection of papers will be announced by 30 May 2014.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The World Trade Organization, unlike other international organizations, may require its acceded members to accept more stringent rules of conduct than those binding upon its original members. The scope and content of such rules are country-specific, depending on the result of accession negotiations. The country-specific rules are set out in the protocol of accession concluded between the acceding country and the WTO. Cumulatively, accession rules have formed a significant part of WTO law, and some have given rise to major disputes, generating WTO case law on accession.
Despite the general acceptance of WTO accession practice, important questions concerning its legality and legitimacy remain unanswered. Substantively, the accession protocols modify the rules of conduct contained in the WTO multilateral trade agreements when applied to the acceded members. Yet, it is unclear on what legal basis the accession protocols have acquired this authority and what the proper relation should be between accession protocols and the WTO agreements. Normatively, the more stringent rules of conduct result in less favorable treatment of the acceded members, in derogation of the WTO principle of nondiscrimination. But it is unclear how such derogation may be justified. Confusions over the status of accession protocols and the absence of clear rationale for the country-specific rules have led to problematic jurisprudence, creating uncertainty in the rights and obligations of acceded members vis-à-vis other members of the WTO.
This article seeks to resolve this conundrum of WTO accession protocols, building on insights from existing scholarship. On the question of legality, the author takes a comparative and historical approach, and proposes that WTO accession protocols can be most aptly characterized as subsequent practice of an international organization modifying its underlying treaties. On the question of legitimacy, the article identifies the lack of reason and transparency in the accession rules as the main problem, and critiques the “entry fee” theory offered by a WTO panel as the justification for all accession rules. The article then makes suggestions on what should and can be done to mitigate the problems caused by WTO accession protocols.
This article examines the evolution of international law as a professional and intellectual discipline in the Republic of China (ROC), which has governed Mainland China (1912-1949) and post-1949 Taiwan. The ROC’s centennial development fundamentally shaped modern China’s course of foreign relations and postwar global governance. The article argues that statism, pragmatism and idealism define the major features of the ROC’s approach to international law. These characteristics transformed the law of nations into universally valid normative claims and prompted modern China’s intellectual focus on the civilized nation concept. First, the article analyzes the professionalization of the discipline of international law. It offers insight into the cultivation of China’s first-generation international lawyers in the Foreign Ministry, international law societies and the Shanghai Mixed Court. Second, it explores the ROC’s approach of assertive legalism in applying international law to advance diplomatic objectives. The nation’s strategic engagement with unequal treaties, the League of Nations, and the United Nations contributed to its Grotian moment. The assertion of legal claims in judicial proceedings and Taiwan’s international standing further reinforced the dynamic dimension of the discipline. Therefore, this article provides a valuable case study of twentieth century international lawmaking in East Asia.
- Dossier spécial : La responsabilité des organisations internationales : un état des lieux à l'issue des travaux de la commission du droit international des Nations Unies
- Y. Kerbrat, P. Klein, & V. Michel, Présentation
- G. Gaja, Note introductive de l’ancien rapporteur spécial
- P. Jacob, Les définitions des notions d’« organe » et d’« agent » retenues par la CDI sont-elles opérationnelles ?
- P. Palchetti, Les autorités provisoires de gouvernement (PIS G) du Kosovo, EULEX et ONU : les principes d’attribution à l’épreuve
- P.J. Kuijper, Attribution — Responsibility — Remedy. Some comments on the EU in different international regimes
- A. Tzanakopoulos, L’invocation de la théorie des contre-mesures en tant que justification de la désobéissance au Conseil de sécurité
- Y. Kerbrat, Sanctions et contre-mesures : risques de confusion dans les articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité des organisations internationales
- M. Aznar, La distinction entre sanctions et contre-mesures
- P. Bodeau-Livinec, Les faux-semblants de la lex specialis — L’exemple de la résolution 52/247 de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies sur les limitations temporelles et financières de la responsabilité de l’ONU
- G. Marhic, Le régime de responsabilité des opérations de paix de l’Union européenne : quelles règles applicables ?
- M. Forteau, Régime général de responsabilité ou lex specialis ?
- F. Mégret, La responsabilité des Nations Unies au temps du choléra
- V. Richard, Les organisations internationales entre responsibility et accountability : le régime de responsabilité esquissé par la CDI est-il adapté aux organisations internationales ?
- C. Espaliu Berdud, De la vie et de la mort des normes impératives du droit international
- N. Hajjami, Que signifie l’expression « prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires » dans la pratique du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies ?
Human rights treaties contain provisions for the so-called democratic rights. These provisions are textually almost identical in various regional and universal human rights treaties, yet courts and other judicial bodies have constructed diverse understandings of democracy through interpretation. The main questions that arise are whether human rights treaties require a multiparty political setting and how they accommodate limitations on the will of the people. This article analyses developments in the context of the ICCPR and the three regional systems. It demonstrates that human rights courts have clearly established a requirement for multiparty elections and have even attempted a more robust, substantive definition of democracy. However, a new problem has arisen in recent case law. The electoral process has become dominated by political parties and electoral systems have often proven to be unable to accommodate independent candidates. The result is that candidates wishing to run at elections may be forced to associate with others. The contemporary interpretation of human rights treaties does not necessarily provide for suitable avenues to take part in elections outside of the framework of party politics. If it was once questionable whether human rights treaties guarantee the right to associate in political parties, it now seems that parties have become too central in the exercise of the so-called democratic rights.
Since the inception of the international investment law system, investment promotion and protection have been the raison d’être of investment treaties and states have confined their policy space in order to attract foreign investment and protect their investors abroad. Languishing in relative obscurity until recently, the right to regulate has gradually come to the spotlight as a key component of negotiations on new generation investment agreements around the globe. States and regional organisations, including, notably, the European Union and the United States, have started to examine ways in which to safeguard their regulatory power and guide – and delimit – the interpretive power of arbitral tribunals, by reserving their right to pursue specific public policy objectives. The monograph explores the status quo of the right to regulate, in order to offer an appraisal and a reference tool for treatymakers, thus contributing to a better understanding of the concept and the broader discourse on how to enhance the investment law system’s legitimacy.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
- Special Issue: International Water Law
- Stephen C. McCaffrey, International Water Cooperation in the 21st Century: Recent Developments in the Law of International Watercourses
- Alistair Rieu-Clarke & Rémy Kinna, Can Two Global UN Water Conventions Effectively Co-exist? Making the Case for a ‘Package Approach’ to Support Institutional Coordination
- Gabriel Eckstein & Francesco Sindico, The Law of Transboundary Aquifers: Many Ways of Going Forward, but Only One Way of Standing Still
- Ruby Moynihan & Bjørn-Oliver Magsig, The Rising Role of Regional Approaches in International Water Law: Lessons from the UNECE Water Regime and Himalayan Asia for Strengthening Transboundary Water Cooperation
- Makane Moïse Mbengue, A Model for African Shared Water Resources: The Senegal River Legal System
- Patricia Wouters, The Yin and Yang of International Water Law: China's Transboundary Water Practice and the Changing Contours of State Sovereignty
- A. Dan Tarlock, Mexico and the United States Assume a Legal Duty to Provide Colorado River Delta Restoration Flows: An Important International Environmental and Water Law Precedent
- Owen McIntyre, The Protection of Freshwater Ecosystems Revisited: Towards a Common Understanding of the ‘Ecosystems Approach’ to the Protection of Transboundary Water Resources
- Michelle Lim, Is Water Different from Biodiversity? Governance Criteria for the Effective Management of Transboundary Resources
- Regular Articles
- Arie Trouwborst, Exploring the Legal Status of Wolf-Dog Hybrids and Other Dubious Animals: International and EU Law and the Wildlife Conservation Problem of Hybridization with Domestic and Alien Species
- Leonie Reins, In Search of the Legal Basis for Environmental and Energy Regulation at the EU Level: The Case of Unconventional Gas Extraction
- Róisín Áine Costello, Reviving Rylands: How the Doctrine Could Be Used to Claim Compensation for Environmental Damages Caused by Fracking
- Case Note
- Lorenzo Squintani & Hans H.B. Vedder, Towards Inverse Direct Effect? A Silent Development of a Core European Law Doctrine
Call for Papers: The Changing Nature of Peacekeeping: Challenges for Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Human Rights
Call for Papers:
“The Changing Nature of Peacekeeping:
Challenges for Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Human Rights”
A Joint ESIL IGPS/SHARES Project Symposium
The European Society of International Law Interest Group on Peace and Security (ESIL IGPS) and the Research Project on Shared Responsibility in International Law (SHARES Project) organize a joint symposium to be held in conjunction with the 10th ESIL Anniversary Conference in Vienna, Austria, on 3 September 2014.
The symposium, entitled “The Changing Nature of Peacekeeping: Challenges for Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Human Rights”, is organized against the background of an ongoing evolution in UN peacekeeping operations especially in relation with the increasing number of missions for the protection of civilians, the robust use of force mandate given by the UN Security Council to some peacekeeping missions and the recent creation of “offensive” combat forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Intervention Brigade) and Mali (MINUSMA). The more expansive mandates of peacekeeping forces raise critical questions pertaining to the law applicable to such forces, and the allocation of responsibility in situations where members of peacekeeping forces act in contravention of their international obligations. The symposium will discuss whether there indeed is a major shift in UN peacekeeping practice and will explore important questions of international law raised by these new practices.
In particular, it will examine the applicability of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and human rights that impact on the UN, troop contributing states, the host state, and non-state armed actors. It also will explore whether the rules of international responsibility are sufficiently developed to assign responsibility to the Security Council and/or member states for actions taken where peacekeepers are engaged in the robust use of force or armed conflict. In this context it will also seek to address issues of shared responsibility that may arise from the interplay among these actors and to consider how the new practices may pose new challenges in determining and apportioning responsibility among states, international organizations and non-state actors.
Please submit a 500 words abstract proposal via email to Prof. Theodore Christakis (Christakis@wanadoo.fr) and Dr. Ilias Plakokefalos (I.Plakokefalos@uva.nl) by 4 May. The proposal should also include the author’s name and affiliation, the author’s brief CV and contact details, and should indicate whether the author is an ESIL member. Please note that submission of abstracts is open to ESIL members and non ESIL members, but the organizers will seek a balanced representation of ESIL members on the program of the event. Please submit all these elements in a single pdf document. Successful applicants will be informed by 15 May.
Please note that unfortunately, the ESIL IGPS and SHARES Project are not in a position to cover expenses for travelling and accommodation, or to waive the ESIL conference fee. Information on the 10th ESIL Anniversary Conference is available here.
Please also note that the intention of the ESIL IGPS and SHARES Project is to publish the best papers in a book, special issue of a law journal and/or the ESIL IGPS/SHARES Project webpages. Participants are required to send an extended outline of their paper by 25 August.
Brummer: Minilateralism: How Trade Alliances, Soft Law and Financial Engineering are Redefining Economic Statecraft
Economic diplomacy is changing. The multilateral organizations that dominated the last half of the twentieth century no longer monopolize economic affairs. Instead, countries are resorting to more modest “minilateral” strategies like trade alliances, informal “soft law” agreements, and financial engineering to manage the global economy. Like traditional modes of economic statecraft, these tools are aimed at both liberalizing and supervising international financial policy in a world of diverse national interests. But unlike before, they are specifically tailored to navigating a post-American (and post-Western) world where economic power is more diffuse than ever before. This book explains how these strategies work and reveals how this new diplomatic toolbox will reshape how countries do business with one another for decades to come.
- Tom Ruys, Of Arms, Funding and “Non-lethal Assistance”—Issues Surrounding Third-State Intervention in the Syrian Civil War
- Xiaohui Wu, From Assimilation to Autonomy: Realizing Ethnic Minority Rights in China's National Autonomous Regions
- Charles De Bock, The Crime of Aggression: Prospects and Perils for the Third World
- Rein Müllerson, Ukraine: Victim of Geopolitics
- Julio Barboza, The Beagle Channel Dispute: Reflections of the Agent of Argentina
- Sienho Yee, En Route to the Final Shape of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System: Some Pivotal Negotiating Procedural Steps Worthy of Consideration by Future Treaty-makers and Leaders in Treaty-making
- Antonio Cardesa-Salzmann, Combating Desertification in Central Asia: Finding New Ways to Regional Stability through Environmental Sustainability?
Monday, April 21, 2014
The fall of the United Nations 'safe area' of Srebrenica in July 1995 to Bosnian Serb and Serbian forces stands out as the international community's most egregious failure to intervene during the Bosnian war. It led to genocide, forced displacement and a legacy of loss. But wartime inaction has since spurred numerous postwar attempts to address the atrocities' effects on Bosnian society and its diaspora. Srebrenica in the Aftermath of Genocide reveals how interactions between local, national and international interventions - from refugee return and resettlement to commemorations, war crimes trials, immigration proceedings and election reform - have led to subtle, positive effects of social repair, despite persistent attempts at denial. Using an interdisciplinary approach, diverse research methods, and more than a decade of fieldwork in five countries, Lara J. Nettelfield and Sarah Wagner trace the genocide's reverberations in Bosnia and abroad. The findings of this study have implications for research on post-conflict societies around the world.
ESIL LAWSEAIG - Call for Papers
International Law and . . . the Sea
Vienna, 3 September 2014
The dominion over the sea and the regulation of maritime activities has had an important influence on the development of international law. It has generated a specific corpus of international rules, which have been partly codified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). On the one hand, general international law (i.e., subjectivity, law of treaties, international responsibility, immunities, use of force, etc.) has greatly influenced the development of the law of the sea and the drafting the LOSC. On the other hand, the law of the sea has introduced new legal concepts (e.g., the common heritage of mankind) and created novel legal frameworks (e.g., the regime of the exclusive economic zone), which are affecting general international law. They are even calling for a re-consideration of some basic concepts, such as jurisdiction and sovereignty.
This panel is intended to focus on the interplay between general international law and the law of the sea and to answer the following question: what has the law of the sea “given” to general international? In this context the term ‘given’ wants to be value-neutral.
The Application Process
Please submit a 500 words abstract proposal via email to Seline Trevisanut (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 1 June 2014. Successful applicants will be informed by 30 June 2014. The deadline for the submission of final papers is 15 August 2014.
In addition to the abstract, the following information must be provided on the submission:
• The author’s name and affiliation
• The author’s contact details
• Whether the author is an ESIL member
Papers will be selected by the co-convenors of the Interest Group (Prof. Erik Franckx, Prof. Miguel Garcia, and Dr. Seline Trevisanut), on the basis of abstracts submitted. Only one abstract per author will be considered.
In order to participate in the Interest Group panel, speakers must be members of ESIL. The membership can be formalised once abstracts have been accepted. Unfortunately, the ESIL LAWSEA IG is not in a position to cover expenses for travelling and accommodation, or to waiver the ESIL conference fee.
The working languages of the panel are English and French. Since no translation will be provided, participants should have passive understanding of both languages and active understanding of at least one of them.
- Jean-Paul Costa, Remise des insignes de chevalier de Légion d’honneur à Me Pierre Lambert – 5 décembre 2013
- Linos-A Sicilianos, L’élargissement de la compétence consultative de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme – À propos du Protocole no 16 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
- Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, Les méthodes d’interprétation de la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’homme Justice in context
- Nicolas Bernard, Les ressources – préjudicielles notamment – qu’offre l’article 34, paragraphe 3, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (droit à une aide au logement)
- Yannick Lecuyer, Splendeurs et misères de l’ordre politique européen – Contribution à l’étude de la construction jurisprudentielle d’un ordre constitutionnel européen
- Vincent Bonnet, L’accouchement sous X et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme : une histoire sans fin ? (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., Godelli c. Italie, 25 septembre 2012)
- Jérôme Martens & Jean-François Neven, La consolidation du devoir d’assistance des États envers les mineurs étrangers en séjour irrégulier (obs/s. Comité eur. drts. sociaux, D.E.I. c. Belgique, 23 octobre 2012)
- Xavier-Baptiste Ruedin, Nouvelles requêtes faisant suite à un premier arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (obs/s. Cour eur. dr. h., arrêt Sampani e.a. c. Grèce, 11 décembre 2012)
- Antoine Bailleux, Entre droits fondamentaux et intégration européenne, la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne face à son destin (obs/s. C.J.U.E., Stefano Melloni et Åkerberg Fransson, 26 février 2013)
- Katarzyna Blay-Grabarczyk, Conciliation de la protection des droits d’autrui et de la liberté de la presse : la quête d’un équilibre introuvable
- Audrey Lebret, Le « oui » français au mariage homosexuel et le principe d’égalité : de la souveraineté du législateur quant à l’opportunité de la réforme au contrôle renforcé du juge quant à ses effets (obs/s. Cons. const. (fr.), 17 mai 2013, no 2013-669 DC, 17 mai 2013)
Le principe ne bis in idem interdit que l’on soit « jugé deux fois pour la même chose ». Or la pluralité des juges compétents pour les crimes « les plus graves » (génocide, crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité) augmente la probabilité de doubles procédures. Cet ouvrage décortique l’histoire, les justifications et la mise en oeuvre du principe dans le droit des TPI et de la CPI, et permet de dégager plusieurs hypothèses. La prégnance d’un idéal répressif, d’abord : la « lutte contre l’impunité » favorise la multiplication des procédures. Une ratio legis surprenante, ensuite : le principe ne bis in idem paraît servir moins à protéger l’accusé qu’à répartir les compétences entre juges concurremment compétents. Originale et minutieuse, cette première étude du principe ne bis in idem ouvre également certaines pistes vers la théorie du droit.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
'Statelessness' is a legal status denoting lack of any nationality, a status whereby the otherwise normal link between an individual and a state is absent. The increasingly widespread problem of statelessness has profound legal, social, economic and psychological consequences but also gives rise to the paradox of an international community that claims universal standards for all natural persons while allowing its member states to allow statelessness to occur. In this powerfully argued book, Conklin critically evaluates traditional efforts to recognize and reduce statelessness. The problem, he argues, rests in the obligatory nature of law, domestic or international. By closely analysing a broad spectrum of court and tribunal judgments from many jurisdictions, Conklin explains how confusion has arisen between two discourses, the one discourse inside the other, as to the nature of the international community. One discourse, a surface discourse, describes a community in which international law justifies a state's freedom to confer, withdraw or withhold nationality. This international community incorporates state freedom over nationality matters, bringing about the de jure and effective stateless condition. The other discourse, an inner discourse, highlights a legal bond of socially experienced relationships. Such a bond, judicially referred to as 'effective nationality', is binding upon all states, and where such a bond exists, harm to a stateless person represents harm to the international community as a whole.