This chapter examines the scope of the principles of consent, neutrality/impartiality, and minimum use of force as they apply to modern United Nations peacekeeping operations. It asks how the use of force can be used to protect humanitarian values assigned to peacekeeping operations, and how such use of force interacts with the principles of neutrality and impartiality. The chapter also discusses the implications of ‘the responsibility to protect’ and the ‘protection of civilians’ for the competence to use force. It concludes by identifying a number of difficulties encountered by peacekeeping missions in attaining humanitarian values.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Tsagourias: Self-Defence, Protection of Humanitarian Values and the Doctrine of Impartiality and Neutrality in Enforcement Mandates
Friday, January 9, 2015
Call for Papers
Urgency and Human Rights
Conference of 29-30 May 2015
Deadline for abstracts: 15 February 2015
The Department of International and European Law of the Law Faculty of the Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands in cooperation with the Seconda Università di Napoli, Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Italy and Ghent Human Rights Centre, Belgium will host a two-day conference on ‘Urgency and Human Rights’ planned for Friday 29 and Saturday 30 May 2015, in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
This conference firstly aims to bring together existing scholarship regarding urgency and human rights and discuss the evolving practices in this respect with practitioners. Secondly, its objective is to allow for in-depth discussion of what should be the role of the domestic judiciary when dealing with urgent cases.
For the purpose of this conference ‘urgent cases’ are considered to be cases aimed at preventing irreparable harm to persons. Provisional measures are an important feature in any discussion on urgent proceedings. They are predominantly, but not exclusively, applicable in situations aimed at preventing the violation of the right to life and the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment. (For more information see the Concept paper for the conference)
The conference will feature plenary sessions with invited speakers and roundtables. Invited speakers include current and former judges of various international tribunals, as well as legal practitioners and scholars.
Discussants will examine the above questions regarding urgency, including the tool of provisional measures/interim measures, from the perspectives of the judge/adjudicator, the litigant and the scholar. Apart from looking at the role of the judiciary, this conference allows us to discuss the role of lawyers in considering the broader impact of their litigation and the importance for lawyers of strategic litigation. By doing so, the conference aims to have both scholarly and societal impact.
Roundtables are foreseen on Urgency in domestic proceedings on human rights; Urgency in expulsion and extradition cases and Urgency in detention cases. For the roundtables a call for papers is issued. Proposals for papers (abstracts) should correspond to the overall conference theme and can relate to (but need not be limited to) the following topics:
- How should courts deal with urgency at the international and domestic level?
- What types of situations are considered to be urgent: extradition, expulsion, execution, detention conditions, death threats or also provision of basic subsistence rights?
- How do international adjudicators (courts and other monitoring bodies deciding on individual complaints) deal with evidentiary matters in the face of urgent pending cases? In particular, how do they deal with the available evidence in the face of a state’s request to withdraw provisional measures?
- How do domestic courts in your jurisdiction deal with interim measures ordered/indicated by international adjudicators?
- What is the role of these domestic courts when they interpret, apply and implement international obligations in urgent cases? Do they distinguish between the individual cases of petitioners who actually brought cases internationally and cases of others similarly situated?
- What is the role of lawyers in deciding on urgent litigation? To what extent should they anticipate the long-term effects and the interests of a larger group of people?
- What have been good approaches to the right to an effective remedy developed in domestic systems for addressing urgent situations (both those situations in which international adjudicators were involved and those dealt with at the domestic level alone) pending litigation?
We welcome abstracts and suggestions related to the questions raised above and to the conference theme more generally.
The deadline for submissions of paper abstracts and panel descriptions (max. 300 words) is 15 February 2015. Abstracts should be sent to: Ms. R. Möhrlein, LL.M, email@example.com, co-organizer of the conference. Authors of the selected abstracts will be notified at the latest by 15 March 2015. They will be invited to prepare a conference paper (max. 8500 words) and to take part in a roundtable discussion during the conference. A subsequent book including selected conference papers is foreseen.
For any further information or questions with regard to the call for papers and the conference, please contact Ms. R. Möhrlein.
Call for Papers: Managing Legitimacy: Empirical Approaches for Measuring How International Judges and Arbitrators Respond to Backlash and Discontent
Call for Papers
Managing Legitimacy: Empirical Approaches for Measuring How International Judges and Arbitrators Respond to Backlash and Discontent
Agora Proposal for the European Society of International Law (ESIL) Annual Conference: The Judicialization of International Law – A Mixed Blessing?
Oslo, 10-12 September 2015
This is a call for papers for a roundtable discussion on measuring judicial responses to legitimacy crises that a number of international courts and tribunals have experienced in recent years. Can we identify trends whereby judicial actors (international judges and arbitrators) attempt to manage (strategically or not) their legitimacy in response to discontent from stakeholders and citizens at large? We are particularly interested in papers that identify new or diverse methodologies (quantitative, qualitative and interpretive) for measuring the extent of such judicial responses, their casual pathways, and that are rooted in theories of judicial behavior.
In a roundtable discussion moderated by Prof. Ole Kristian Fauchald of PluriCourts, University of Oslo, we seek to invite four or five participants to present on-going work relating to this topic. We hope to include participants focused on a wide-array of international courts and tribunals including, but not limited to: the International Court of Justice, the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO, international human rights courts and bodies, the International Criminal Court, and investment treaty arbitration.
Please submit your paper proposal of less than 500 words and a CV (including your affiliation and contact information) to firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline is 25 January 2015. Submissions will receive a response by 30 January 2015. Depending on the results of this call, and its acceptance to the conference, this agora will be presented at the Eleventh Annual ESIL Conference in Oslo, Norway from 10-12 September 2015. PluriCourts will assist participants in securing funding for travel and accommodation. The topic for this year’s conference will be ‘The Judicialization of International Law – A Mixed Blessing?’ and will focus on the increasing number, impact, and importance of international courts and tribunals from an interdisciplinary perspective. More information on the conference and the call for agora proposals is available here.
de Wet: The Modern Practice of Intervention by Invitation in Africa and its Implications for the Prohibition of the Use of Force
The article examines how two prominent criteria for permissible military intervention by invitation as developed in doctrine are currently implemented by States, as well as how this impacts the prohibition of the use of force. Controversies concern in particular the determination of the authority entitled to extend the invitation, as recently illustrated by the Russian claim that its military intervention in the Crimea was based on the invitation of (former) President Yanukovych. Does the inviting authority need to enjoy democratic legitimacy and/ or be in de facto control of a State’s territory? Furthermore, it remains highly contentious whether an invitation for forcible intervention may be extended during a civil war. By analysing modern State practice in Africa -- where most of the contemporary invitations for military assistance occur -- and comparing it to recent developments in other regions, the author concludes that effective control rather than democratic legitimacy is (still) the point of departure for determining the legitimate government of a State. Once recognized, incumbent governments enjoy a large discretion when inviting military assistance from foreign governments. They seem to retain the right to military assistance even in situations of civil war and while exercising limited control 6over the territory.
- Marguš v. Croatia (Eur. Ct. H.R.), with introductory note by Elizabeth Stubbins Bates
- Georgia v. Russia (I) (Eur. Ct. H.R.), with introductory note by William R. Slomanson
- Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Communications & Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (C.J.E.U.), with introductory note by Elizabeth Gibson
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, with introductory note by Emily Crawford
- Maritime Labour Convention, with introductory note by Alexandros X.M. Ntovas
La selección del árbitro es el acto más importante en el desarrollo del arbitraje ya que de la calidad del árbitro designado dependerá el buen resultado del propio arbitraje. La importancia del presente libro es esencial para entender el origen y el desarrollo del arbitraje.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
- Aaron M. Hoffman, Christopher R. Agnew, Laura E. VanderDrift, & Robert Kulzick, Norms, Diplomatic Alternatives, and the Social Psychology of War Support
- Fernando Aguiar & Antonio Parravano, Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks
- Nidhiya Menon & Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, War and Women’s Work: Evidence from the Conflict in Nepal
- Mark S. Bell & Nicholas L. Miller, Questioning the Effect of Nuclear Weapons on Conflict
- Roni Porat, Eran Halperin, & Daniel Bar-Tal, The Effect of Sociopsychological Barriers on the Processing of New Information about Peace Opportunities
- Axel Dreher, Jan-Egbert Sturm, & James Raymond Vreeland, Politics and IMF Conditionality
- January 19, 2015: Elizabeth Cohen (Syracuse Univ. - Political Science), The Sovereignty of Time in Border Formation and Maintenance (Discussant: Matthew Lister, Wharton)
- February 2, 2015: Aziza Ahmed (Northeastern Univ. - Law), Indicators and Global Governance in Global Health Law (Discussant: David Zaring, Wharton)
- February 16, 2015: Linda Bosniak (Rutgers Univ., Camden - Law), Wrongs, Rights, and Regularization (Discussant: Itamar Mann, Georgetown)
- March 2, 2015: Jennifer Gordon (Fordham Univ. - Law), Regulating the Global Labor Supply Chain (Discussant: Kevin Kolben, Rutgers Business)
- March 23, 2015: Dimitry Kochenov (Univ. of Groningen - Law), Citizenship Duties (Discussant: Fernanda Nicola, American)
- April 6, 2015: Tendayi Achiume (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Law), Refugees and the Responsibility to Protect (Discussant TBD)
- April 20, 2015: Chantal Thomas (Cornell Univ. - Law) Labor Trafficking in New York State - A Case for Global Governance? (Discussant TBD)
- Volume 369
- Herbert Kronke, Transnational Commercial Law and Conflict of Laws: Institutional Co-operation and Substantive Complementarity
- Loretta Ortiz Ahlf, The Human Rights of Undocumented Migrants
- Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, Pan-Africanism and International Law
- Toshiyuki Kono, Efficiency in Private International Law
It is a truism to say that conventional international humanitarian law (IHL) regulates international armed conflict (IAC) far more extensively than non-international armed conflict (NIAC). In IAC, conventional IHL authorizes both targeting and detention and carefully circumscribes their use. In NIAC, by contrast, conventional IHL is silent on the authorization for targeting and detention and imposes only rudimentary limits on when individuals may be targeted or detained.
Like nature, however, international law abhors a vacuum. Many of the gaps in the conventional IHL of NIAC have been slowly filled by custom; the ICRC has concluded that 138 of the 161 customary rules of IHL now apply in both IAC and NIAC – nearly 86%. As a result, it is now common for scholars to claim that, with the notorious exceptions of the combatant’s privilege and POW status, very few critical differences remain between IAC and NIAC concerning the applicable rules of IHL.
From a positivist perspective, the gradual harmonization of IAC and NIAC through convention and custom is unproblematic, because both are formal sources of international law. Since 9/11, however, the United States has consistently taken the position that certain IAC-based rules of IHL can be applied in NIAC via a third method: analogy. The U.S. has argued, for example, that it can target members of any organized armed group that would qualify under IAC rules as a “co-belligerent” of al-Qaeda.
In assessing the legitimacy of such analogies, it is tempting to focus on whether it makes sense to apply a particular IAC rule in NIAC. Is the Haqqani Network’s relationship with al-Qaeda really equivalent to Italy’s relationship with Nazi Germany? Emphasizing the substantive “fit” between IAC and NIAC, however, simply obscures a more fundamental question: where does the U.S.’s authority to analogize between IAC and NIAC come from?
That is a critical question, for two reasons. First, targeting and detention potentially violate the human rights of the individuals they affect. As the International Law Commission has noted, it is not enough for targeting or detention to qualify as a legitimate act of self-defence under Art. 51 of the UN Charter; that targeting or detention must also be consistent with either IHL or international human rights law (IHRL), depending on which legal regime applies. Second, because all of the targeting and detention activities that occur in the NIAC between the U.S. and al-Qaeda take place extraterritorially, each U.S. use of force and each capture operation potentially violates the sovereignty of the state on whose territory it takes place.
Put more simply, by relying on analogized rules of IHL to justify expanded targeting and detention of al-Qaeda, the U.S. potentially runs afoul of a number of prohibitive rules of international law: the principle of non-intervention; the prohibition on the use of force; and IHRL prohibitions on the arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty. What, then, is the legal basis for those analogies?
This chapter’s answer is straightforward: nothing. There is no basis in international law for taking rules of IHL that exist as a matter of convention and custom only in IAC and applying them in NIAC by analogy – which means that the U.S. is systematically violating international law by relying on those analogized rules to target and detain extraterritorially.
This article argues that the growth of international organizations (IOs) over the past century has been imagined and undertaken as necessary to making modern states on a broadly Western model. The proliferation of IOs and expansion of their legal powers, through both formal and informal means, raise profound questions regarding the relationship between international law’s reforming promise and its imperialist perils. The article proposes a new analytic framework for understanding these phenomena, focusing on the rationalities of IO powers and the technologies through which they are made operable. It argues that both the growth of IOs and the cultural processes of state formation are impelled by a particular dynamic of liberal reform that is at once internal and external to law. That dynamic and the analytic framework proposed here are both illustrated and exemplified through an analytical account of the emergence of IOs in the 19th century.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Boulet: Cyber Operations by Private Actors in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict: From Cyber War to Cyber Security
- Eric Pickett & Michael Lux, Embargo as a Trade Defense against an Embargo: The WTO Compatibility of the Russian Ban on Imports from the EU
- Frank Altemöller, A Future for Multilateralism?: New Regionalism, Counter-Multilateralism and Perspectives for the World Trade System after the Bali Ministerial Conference
- Hugo Romero & Fernando Piérola, Unwritten Measures: Reflections on the Panel Reports in Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods
Maogoto: Technology and the Law on the Use of Force: New Security Challenges in the Twenty-First Century
As governmental and non-governmental operations become progressively supported by vast automated systems and electronic data flows, attacks of government information infrastructure, operations and processes pose a serious threat to economic and military interests. In 2007 Estonia suffered a month long cyber assault to its digital infrastructure, described in cyberspace as ‘Web War I’. In 2010, a worm—Stuxnet—was identified as supervisory control and data acquisition systems at Iran’s uranium enrichment plant, presumably in an attempt to set back Iran’s nuclear programme. The dependence upon telecommunications and information infrastructures puts at risk Critical National Infrastructure, and is now at the core of national security interests.
This book takes a detailed look at these new theatres of war and considers their relation to international law on the use of force. Except in cases of self-defence or with the authorisation of a Security Council Resolution, the use of force is prohibited under the UN charter and customary international law. However, the law of jus ad bellum was developed in a pre-digital era where current technological capabilities could not be conceived. Jackson Maogoto asks whether the law on the use of force is able to deal with legal disputes likely to arise from modern warfare. Key queries include how one defines an armed attack in an age of anti-satellite weaponry, whether the destruction of a State’s vital digital eco-system or the "blinding" of military communication satellites constitutes a threat, and how one delimits the threshold that would enliven the right of self-defence or retaliatory action. The book argues that while technology has leapt ahead, the legal framework has failed to adapt, rendering States unable to legally defend themselves effectively.
- Nathalie Ros, Au-delà de la borne 602 : la frontière maritime entre l’Espagne et la France en mer Méditerranée
- Guillaume Le Floch, L’OIAC et le démantèlement de l’arsenal chimique syrien
- Caroline Kleiner, Les droits de l’homme et le secret bancaire : opposition ou subsomption ?
- Géraldine Bachoué-Pedrouzo, Le chef d’État et l’accès au territoire étranger. Quelques précisions . . .
- Christian Gamaleu Kameni, Réflexions sur la réglementation de l’investissement privé étranger dans l’espace de l’OHADA
- G. Gaja, Primary and Secondary Rules in the International Law on State Responsibility
- E. Sciso, La crisi ucraina e l’intervento russo: profili di diritto internazionale
- A. Davì, Ancora sulle finalità (e sui diversi modelli) del rinvio nel diritto internazionale privato contemporaneo
- Note e Commenti
- P. Pustorino, La riparazione dei danni nella sentenza della Corte europea nel caso Cipro c. Turchia
- S. Tonolo, Il diritto alla genitorialità nella sentenza della Corte costituzionale che cancella il divieto di fecondazione eterologa: profili irrisolti e possibili soluzioni
- A. Di Pascale, I diritti sociali nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione Europea: diritti fondamentali?
- F. Capotorti, Abogados senza limiti?
- S. Marino, La circolazione dell’ordinanza europea di sequestro conservativo dei depositi bancari
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
For better or worse, international law is confronting a period of profound change. Geopolitical developments—in particular, new assertions of economic, political, or military power by countries like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—have simultaneously aggravated latent territorial disputes and created the potential for unprecedented economic integration. Advances in technology have enabled cyber-conflicts and forged new tools for governmental coercion or control, while also facilitating the dissemination of information. Shared environmental challenges have presented new causes of human suffering or conflict, as well as new possibilities for global cooperation and assistance. And the increased role of non-state actors in international affairs has made more vocal the still unfulfilled demands on, for example, the universal recognition of the human rights of LGBT persons, the responsibilities associated with corporate conduct, and the protection of people from mass atrocities.
The 2015 ASIL Annual Meeting will ask how international law is adapting to a rapidly changing world. For example: Are the existing international legal regimes capable of meeting these challenges or will new regimes be required? Through what processes can we expect international law to adapt, and how might new norms emerge in the face of persistent disagreements or holdout problems? How is the legal order responding as the world moves from a unipolar system dominated by the United States to a more multipolar system? And what is the role or relevance of international law where it might be unable to resolve global issues?
The American Society of International Law, with its membership of scholars, practitioners, and students of international law from around the world, will explore these questions at the 2015 Annual Meeting.
- Jennifer Orange, Book Review: Resolving Claims to Self-Determination: Is There a Role for the International Court of Justice?
- Kiran Banerjee, Towards Postnational Membership
- Hilmi M. Zawati, Book Review: Rethinking Rape Law
- Hilmi M. Zawati, The Challenge of Prosecuting Conflict-Related Gender-Based Crimes under Libyan Transitional Justice
- Jamie Rowen & John Hagan, Using Social Science to Frame International Crimes
- Valerie Oosterveld, Sexual Violence Against Men and Boys in Armed Conflict or Mass Atrocity
The entangled threat of crime, corruption, and terrorism now deserves high-level policy attention because of its growth trajectory. Using lively case studies, this book analyzes the transformation of crime and terrorism and the business logic of terrorism. Louise I. Shelley concludes that corruption, crime, and terrorism will remain important security challenges in the twenty-first century as a result of economic and demographic inequalities in the world, the rise of ethnic and sectarian violence, climate change, the growth of technology, and the failure of nineteenth- and twentieth-century institutions to respond to these challenges when they emerged.
Unlike many other trade regimes, the European Union forbids the use of inter-state retaliation to enforce its obligations, and rules out the use of common 'escape' mechanisms such as anti-dumping between the EU member states. How does the EU do without these mechanisms that appear so vital to the political viability of other international trade regimes, including the World Trade Organization? How, therefore, is the European legal order, with the European Court of Justice at its centre, able to be so much more binding and intrusive than the legal obligations of many other trade regimes?
This book puts forward a new explanation of a key part of the European Union's legal system, emphasising its break with the inter-state retaliation mechanisms and how Europe's special form of legal integration is facilitated by intra-industry trade, parliamentary forms of national government, and European welfare states.
It argues first that the EU member states have allowed the enforcement of EU obligations by domestic courts in order to avoid the problems associated with enforcing trade obligations by constant threats of trade retaliation. It argues second that the EU member states have been able to accept such a binding form of dispute settlement and treaty obligation because the policy adjustments required by the European legal order were politically acceptable. High levels of intra-industry trade reduced the severity of the economic adjustments required by the expansion of the European market, and inclusive and authoritative democratic institutions in the member states allowed policy-makers to prioritise a general interest in reliable trading relationships even when policy changes affected significant domestic lobbies. Furthermore, generous national social security arrangements protected national constituents against any adverse consequences arising from the expansion of European law and the intensification of the European market.
The European legal order should therefore be understood as a legalized dispute resolution institution well suited to an international trade and integration regime made up of highly interdependent parliamentary welfare states.
Based on an innovative theory of international law, Janina Dill's book investigates the effectiveness of international humanitarian law (IHL) in regulating the conduct of warfare. Through a comprehensive examination of the IHL defining a legitimate target of attack, Dill reveals a controversy among legal and military professionals about the 'logic' according to which belligerents ought to balance humanitarian and military imperatives: the logics of sufficiency or efficiency. Law prescribes the former, but increased recourse to international law in US air warfare has led to targeting in accordance with the logic of efficiency. The logic of sufficiency is morally less problematic, yet neither logic satisfies contemporary expectations of effective IHL or legitimate warfare. Those expectations demand that hostilities follow a logic of liability, which proves impracticable. This book proposes changes to international law, but concludes that according to widely shared normative beliefs, on the twenty-first-century battlefield there are no truly legitimate targets.
Monday, January 5, 2015
The Palestine Yearbook of International Law is now inviting submissions of scholarly articles for publication for its next volume, XVIII (2015). Unlike recent years, this upcoming volume will not be based on a specific theme. Therefore, the editors encourage the submission of scholarly pieces of relevance to public international law and Palestine. The Yearbook is edited at Birzeit University’s Institute of Law (Birzeit, Palestine), and published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (The Hague, The Netherlands). The Editor-in-Chief of the Yearbook is Mr. Ardi Imseis.
At this stage, the Institute of Law will be accepting abstracts for review. Abstracts should include a working title, with a preliminary outline of the author’s legal arguments, along with a CV.
Recommended topics include, but are not limited to:
- Comparative legal analyses of human rights and freedom struggles of relevance to Palestine (e.g. East Timor, Northern Ireland, South Africa, United States, etc.);
- Non-State actors, national liberation movements and international law;
- Contemporary developments and gaps in the international humanitarian and human rights law framework;
- The role and utility of continuing to use the United Nations (the General Assembly, Security Council, International Court of Justice, etc.) in advancing the cause of peace, justice and freedom in Palestine;
- The statehood of Palestine and its implications in law and policy, both in the region and beyond;
- The responsibility of States (including third States) international organizations, corporations and/or individuals in international law;
- The continued relevance of the Oslo Accords under international law, and in light of Palestine’s accession to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;
- The Gaza Strip and international law;
- Litigating the Palestine issue, at the domestic and international levels;
- Apartheid and colonialism in international law;
- Natural resources in international law;
- Self-determination of peoples in international law;
- Humanitarian intervention;
- The Syria crisis in international law (international refugee law, international humanitarian law, etc…);
- Palestine’s accessions to international treaties and the possibility of future accessions and the joining of international organizations.
Important dates and contact information:
Prospective authors should express interest by e-mailing the Assistant Editor of the Yearbook, Ms. Reem Al-Botmeh and sending an abstract of the suggested paper as indicated above, along with the prospective author’s CV.
The abstract of under 750 words should be submitted by 15 February 2015.
Notification of decisions will be provided 1 March 2015.
For more information, please contact Ms. Reem Al-Botmeh, the Assistant Editor of the Yearbook, at email@example.com or alternatively, you may communicate directly with Mr. Ardi Imseis at AImseis@hotmail.com.
- Report of the Committee on International Commercial Disputes of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Publication of international arbitration awards and decisions
- Marc J. Goldstein, Annulled awards in the U.S. courts: how primary is “primary jurisdiction”?
- Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, The enforcement of annulled awards: further reflections in light of Thai-Lao Lignite
- Maud Piers & Dirk De Meulemeester, A new arbitration law for Belgium: UNCITRAL enters the scene
- Solomon Ebere & Blerina Xheraj, Nine years later: investment treaty arbitration’s contribution to international commercial arbitration
- Peter J. Pettibone, The scope of the public policy exception to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Russia
- Katlyn Thomas, On drafting an “ideal” arbitration statute
- Symposium: Structural Issues at the World Trade Organization
- Joseph Francois & Bernard Hoekman, Introduction to the Symposium Issue on Structural Issues at the World Trade Organisation
- Robert Wolfe, First Diagnose, Then Treat: What Ails the Doha Round?
- Yvan Decreux & Lionel Fontagné, What Next for Multilateral Trade Talks? Quantifying the Role of Negotiation Modalities
- David Laborde & Will Martin, Formulas for Failure? Were the Doha Tariff Formulas too Ambitious for Success?
- Paola Conconi & Carlo Perroni, Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the WTO
- Emily J. Blanchard, A Shifting Mandate: International Ownership, Global Fragmentation, and a Case for Deeper Integration under the WTO
- Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, Embracing Diversity: Plurilateral Agreements and the Trading System
- John S. Odell, How Should the WTO Launch and Negotiate a Future Round?
- Douglas R. Nelson, Prospects for Constitutionalization of the WTO
Treaty conflicts are not merely the contingent or inadvertent by-products of the increasing juridification of international relations. In several instances, States have deliberately created treaty conflicts in order to catalyse changes in multilateral regimes. Surabhi Ranganathan uses such conflicts as context to explore the role of international law, in legal thought and practice. Her examinations of the International Law Commission's work on treaties and of various scholars' proposals on institutional action, offer a fresh view of 'mainstream' legal thought. They locate in a variety of writings a common faith in international legal discourse, built on liberal and constructivist assumptions. Ranganathan's three rich studies of treaty conflict, relating to the areas of seabed mining, the International Criminal Court, and nuclear governance, furnish a textured account of the specific forms and practices that constitute such a legal discourse and permit a grounded understanding of the interactions that shape international law.
The development of international law is conventionally understood as a history in which the main characters (states and international lawyers) and events (wars and peace conferences) are European. Arnulf Becker Lorca demonstrates how non-Western states and lawyers appropriated nineteenth-century classical thinking in order to defend new and better rules governing non-Western states' international relations. By internalizing the standard of civilization, for example, they argued for the abrogation of unequal treaties. These appropriations contributed to the globalization of international law. With the rise of modern legal thinking and a stronger international community governed by law, peripheral lawyers seized the opportunity and used the new discourse and institutions such as the League of Nations to dissolve the standard of civilization and codify non-intervention and self-determination. These stories suggest that the history of our contemporary international legal order is not purely European; instead they suggest a history of a mestizo international law.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Nollkaemper & Plakokefalos: Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law: An Appraisal of the State of the Art
- André Nollkaemper, Introduction
- Andrea Gattini, Breach of international obligations
- Francesco Messineo, Attribution of conduct
- James D. Fry, Attribution of responsibility
- Vladyslav Lanovoy, Complicity in an internationally wrongful act
- Helmut Philipp Aust, Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
- Pierre d'Argent, Reparation, cessation, assurances and guarantees of non-repetition
- Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli, Invocation of responsibility
- Eric Wyler & León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, Serious breaches of peremptory norms
- Christian J. Tams, Countermeasures against multiple responsible actors
- André Nollkaemper & Ilias Plakokefalos, Conclusions