This chapter argues that the interpretation of international law by domestic courts is situated between a universal aspiration of international law — which is connected with claims for a need for uniform interpretation — and the requirements that international law is applied with a view to the local realities. The contribution argues that although domestic courts are not technically under an obligation to make use of the international rules of interpretation, a normative preference on the part of the international legal system exists which militates for a common approach to (treaty) interpretation. Articles 31–33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties supply the necessary toolbox in this regard. In and of themselves, these international rules of interpretation do not demand very much of domestic judges. It is convergence at a very high level of abstraction which is called for in the interest of a basic systemic unity of international law.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
International Law and the Changing Economic & Political Landscape in Asia
Call for Papers
The Asian Society of International Law was established in 2007. Following four successful biennial conferences, the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law will be held in Bangkok, Thailand on Thursday and Friday, 26 and 27 November 2015.
Theme of the Conference
Nowadays governments, scholars and civil society in Asia are engaged enthusiastically in the development of international law in the region. Asian countries today witness more regional cooperation and economic integration, for instance, through the launch of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), etc. The conference will confront the changes that will ensue from these developments in the region, and provide a forum to share perspectives on legal issues from around Asia and from beyond.
Topics of PapersTo this end, proposals for papers are now being invited on the following topics:
- Changing approaches to international law Changing approaches to international law as a discipline, including studies on the teaching, research and practice of international law in Asian contexts; Third World approaches to international law; the contribution of civil society to international law; the turn to “global constitutionalism”;and the UN Charter and the development of international law;
- Emerging issues in human rights Issues in the international protection of human rights, including the evolving position on the responsibility to protect (“R2P”); the empowerment of women in Asian societies; and the impact of labor migration;
- Conflict of laws relating to marriage, adoption, surrogacy and custody of children;
- Energy and natural resources law, including their joint and sustainable development; comparative regulatory and fiscal regimes (e.g. concession v. production-sharing v. service contracts, etc.) and cross-border pollution;
- International environmental law: Climate change and disaster management
- Food security, health and sanitary cooperation;
- International cooperation against organized crime and its punishment: terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, anti-corruption; and the illicit trade in cultural artifacts, especially in conflict situations;
- International Humanitarian Law
- Law of the Sea, including piracy and maritime security and safety in the Asian region
- Legal aspects of regional integration in its political and social dimensions, including ASEAN Integration, free trade agreements, and security arrangements;
- Peaceful resolution of political and territorial disputes in Asia, including legal frameworks for cooperation
- Resolution of international trade and business disputes in Asia, including the enforcement of arbitration awards and foreign judgments
- International Investment Law
- Trade- and business-related issues, including the regulation of cyber matters Issues relating inter alia to competition law; anti-dumping safeguards; intellectual property rights; transfer pricing; WTO obligations of Asian countries; trade sanctions to prevent breaches of International Humanitarian Law; micro-finance and small- and medium-sized enterprises; and finance and investment including SMEs and micro-finance.
The Organizers seek to encourage the participation in the Conference of all persons interested in international law all over the world, whether established or junior scholars, academics or practitioners, government officials and NGO officers, by inviting applications for positions as panelists. Papers may provide an Asian perspective on these topics, and/or international/comparative approaches to the listed topics.
You will be required to provide in the online submission form:
- A 500-word abstract/summary of the proposed paper. Please clearly identify the title of your paper and the panel category in the online form.
- Affiliation details and brief biography This would include details of professional status, educational background, institutional affiliation, office address, contact telephone number, and e-mail address. Please also provide, in the section titled `brief biography’ any information about representative presentations given, publications, and any other relevant information about your research or experience.
- Your affiliation to the Asian Society of International Law Preference will be given to existing members of the Asian Society of International Law in the selection process. To sign up for membership, please click Here.
In addition to paper proposals, proposals for panels will also be considered. A panel should address a topical issue of international law and consist of 4-5 speakers from a range of countries and stages of career development. Please complete the online submission forms by Friday, 10 July 2015, 2300 hrs (Singapore Time).Click HERE for online abstract submission for individual papers
Any enquiries about the paper selection process and Bangkok Conference may be addressed to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Successful applicants will be informed by August 2015 and are required to submit their completed papers and registration to the Conference Organizers by Monday, 6 November 2015. The paper should be between 6000 and 8000 words.
All papers accepted by the Organizers for the Conference may be featured on the Conference website, a document sharing portal or as part of the AsianSIL Working Paper Series. Paper presenters are encouraged to submit finalized papers to the Society’s Asian Journal of International Law. Publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review and editorial discretion. Details may be found on the Journal’s Website www.AsianJIL.org.
Das Werk befasst sich mit dem Zweck und der Legitimation der Strafe im Völkerstrafrecht und begegnet damit einem zentralen in der Literatur angemahnten Theoriedefizit der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit. Wie ist es zu begründen, dass nicht nur staatlich verfasste Gemeinwesen, sondern auch die allenfalls sektoral verfasste internationale Gemeinschaft von dem Instrument der Kriminalstrafe Gebrauch macht? Zu dieser grundlegenden Frage entwickelt der Autor nach einer detaillierten Analyse der retributiven, präventiven und expressiven Straftheorien eine eigenständige, in der Menschenwürde fundierte Konzeption. Deren Ziel ist es, im Umgang mit Völkerrechtsverbrechen zu einer rationalen und individualisierten Reaktion zu gelangen. In den Legitimationsdiskurs werden nicht nur Strafbegründungs- sondern auch Strafbegrenzungsprinzipien integriert und damit Wege der strafrechtlichen Kommunikation aufgezeigt, die ein exkludierendes, internationales „Feindstrafrecht“ vermeiden.
- Arnoud Willems & David Leys, Changes in the Treatment of Trademark Royalties in EU Customs Law: The Example of 3D Printing
- Bernard O’Connor, Much Ado About ‘Nothing’: 2016, China and Market Economy Status
- Yiwu Sun, Customs Agency Enforcement of IPRs in an FTZ
- Bashar H. Malkawi, Notification of the GCC to the WTO as a Customs Union: The Whys and Hows
The observation that states can only act through individuals begins, but does not end, discussions about the implications of state sovereignty for foreign official immunity. Bright-line immunity rules might be alluring, but they do not always best reflect the realities of inter-state relations or serve the needs of the international community. This Essay challenges the prevailing tendency among many courts and jurists dealing with questions of official immunity to treat civil and criminal consequences as categorically distinct, and to ignore immigration consequences altogether. It argues that we should instead view criminal, civil, and immigration consequences (detention, damages, and deportation) as manifestations of the same underlying principle: that individual officials may bear personal responsibility for their acts under international law, and that the domestic institutions of one state may in certain circumstances attach consequences to that responsibility without violating the sovereignty of foreign states. The integrated approach proposed here has at least three important implications. First, it supports the view that just because individual and state responsibility may be concurrent, does not mean that an individual’s and a state’s immunity must be congruent. Second, it suggests that we should treat states’ decisions (and foreign states’ reactions) regarding detention, damages, and deportation as relevant to determining the evolving parameters of conduct-based immunity under international law. Third, it highlights that, although we tend to think of state sovereignty in absolute terms, our understandings of sovereignty — as manifested in state practice — are actually varied and context-dependent. Our ultimate goal should be to tailor horizontal enforcement regimes that respect the core of state sovereignty while promoting individual accountability consistent with due process.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The law of armed conflict prohibits attacks ‘which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.' The importance of this legal prohibition, commonly referred to as the principle of jus in bello proportionality, is difficult to overstate. While the precautionary principles regulate how armed forces may pursue particular military advantages, the proportionality principle regulates whether a particular military advantage may be pursued or must be abandoned. Even if attacking forces select weapons, tactics, and targets that best avoid or most reduce harm to civilians, even at their own risk, they must forego one path to victory if the expected civilian losses are too great. Rather than inflict excessive harm on civilians, attacking forces must find another way to win.
An account of jus in bello proportionality must satisfy two apparently conflicting demands. First, such an account must explain how we can rationally compare civilian losses with military advantages. At the same time, such an account must apply symmetrically to all parties to every conflict and independently of the jus ad bellum legality or morality of any party’s overall war effort. Existing accounts of jus in bello proportionality satisfy either one demand or the other. In this chapter, I offer a new account that satisfies both demands. Along the way I hope to answer a number of additional questions that any serious account of jus in bello proportionality must address.
I argue that an attack that inflicts harm on civilians is jus in bello proportionate only if it prevents substantially greater harm to the attacking force or its civilians over the remainder of the conflict. This account of jus in bello proportionality does not compare incommensurable and imprecisely comparable values, only immediate losses to civilians and future losses to civilians and to attacking forces. In addition, this account applies symmetrically to all parties to an armed conflict, independently of the jus ad bellum morality and legality of their use of military force. Attacks that are disproportionate under this account are morally impermissible when carried out by just combatants, and disproportionate attacks carried out by unjust combatants are morally worse than proportionate attacks carried out by unjust combatants. It follows that both just and unjust combatants have decisive moral reasons to avoid attacks that are disproportionate under this account, and the law would guide soldiers well by prohibiting such attacks.
- Paul Kirby, Ending sexual violence in conflict: the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative and its critics
- William M. LeoGrande, Normalizing US–Cuba relations: escaping the shackles of the past
- Andrew Jillions, When a gamekeeper turns poacher: torture, diplomatic assurances and the politics of trust
- David S. Yost, The Budapest Memorandum and Russia's intervention in Ukraine
- Sten Rynning, The false promise of continental concert: Russia, the West and the necessary balance of power
- Richard Sakwa, The death of Europe? Continental fates after Ukraine
- Bill Park, Turkey's isolated stance: an ally no more, or just the usual turbulence?
- Tracey German, Heading west? Georgia's Euro-Atlantic path
- On the relationship between IHL and IHRL ‘where it matters’ once more: Assessing the position of the European Court of Human Rights after Hassan and Jaloud
- Introduced by Marco Pertile and Chiara Vitucci
- Ziv Bohrer, Human Rights vs Humanitarian Law or rights vs obligations: Reflections following the rulings in Hassan and Jaloud
- Silvia Borelli, Jaloud v Netherlands and Hassan v United Kingdom: Time for a principled approach in the application of the ECHR to military action abroad
- Does the ‘living instrument’ doctrine always lead to ‘evolutive interpretation’? Some remarks after Hassan v the United Kingdom
- Introduced by Francesca de Vittor and Cesare Pitea
- Luigi Crema, Subsequent practice in Hassan v United Kingdom: When things seem to go wrong in the life of a living instrument
- Eirik Bjorge, What is living and what is dead in the European Convention on Human Rights? A Comment on Hassan v United Kingdom
- For all or for some? Functional immunity of State officials before the International Law Commission
- Introduced by Beatrice Bonafé, Micaela Frulli and Paolo Palchetti
- Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, The functional immunity of State officials from foreign jurisdiction: A critique of the traditional theories
- Gionata Buzzini, The enduring validity of immunity ratione materiae: A reply to Professor Pisillo Mazzeschi
- Philippa Webb, Comment on ‘The functional immunity of State officials from foreign jurisdiction: A critique of the traditional theories’
- Chimène Keitner, Functional immunity of State officials before the International Law Commission: The ‘who’ and the ‘what’
La gouvernance mondiale est-elle justiciable d’une définition opératoire pour la recherche en droit international ? Telle qu’elle se déploie dans les institutions internationales traditionnelles ce phénomène de gouvernance envisagé dans le contexte du monde globalisé s’accommode-t-il du respect des prescriptions éthiques de la bonne gouvernance exigées par ailleurs des États?
Le présent ouvrage s’efforce de donner des réponses argumentées suivant l’orthodoxie des canons de la recherche académiques à ces questions. Mais, il montre aussi que les institutions internationales informelles regroupant des fameux « G », les puissances qui veulent régir le monde globalisé se constituent en concurrentes des institutions internationales classiques et tendent à attirer dans ces nouveaux fora des questions qui relèvent traditionnellement de la compétence de ces dernières. Cette gouvernance mondiale est par ailleurs confrontée aux nombreux défis nouveaux que l’avènement du cyberespace et plus précisément le monde de l’internet lance au droit international et en particulier à la protection des droits de l’homme.
L’ouvrage ouvre incontestablement à un nouveau champ de recherche en droit international et des organisations internationales dont la nouveauté ne manquera pas de susciter certains questionnements. Mais, il y a là une mise en perspective d’une problématique nouvelle qui viendra assurément enrichir ces matières classiques.
- Jean-Michel Jacquet, Les lois de l'arbitrage
- Thomas Clay & Philippe Pinsolle, De l'autonomie de la convention d'arbitrage à l'autonomie de la sentence arbitrale. - Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française en matière d'arbitrage international de 1963 à 2007
- Catharine Titi, Le « droit de réglementer » et les nouveaux accords de l'Union européenne sur l'investissement
- Camille Chaserant, Sophie Harnay, & Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, La prestation de services internationale, objet du droit et de l'économie ? Le cas des professions juridiques
- Marie Lemey, L'affaire Julian Assange : controverses juridiques relatives à l'asile diplomatique
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
With its weekly analysis, InternationAnimals ambitions to help you follow and understand the latest legal events related to international animal law. Is animal welfare a general principle of international law? Do animals have fundamental rights? What does the fact that la pachamama is considered a subject of rights in the Bolivian and Ecuadorian constitution actually means?
When studying international law there is often a risk of focusing entirely on the content of international rules (i.e. regimes), and ignoring why these regimes exist and to what extent the rules affect state behavior. Similarly, international relations studies can focus so much on theories based on the distribution of power among states that it overlooks the existence and relevance of the rules of international law. Both approaches hold their dangers. The overlooking of international relations risk assuming that states actually follow international law, and discounting the specific rules of international law makes it difficult for readers to understand the impact of the rules in more than a superficial manner.
This book unifies international law and international relations by exploring how international law and its institutions may be relevant and influence the course of international relations in international trade, protection of the environment, human rights, international criminal justice and the use of force.
Shabtai Rosenne passed away in 2010. The many obituaries – including a eulogy, followed by a minute’s silence, by the ICJ President in session – celebrate the known accomplishments of a renowned international jurist. His engagement with international law requires no demonstration. His engagement with Jewish affairs, however, remains entirely unknown, as are early chapters of his life and career. How these two engagements related to one another is, necessarily, entirely unexplored. Rosenne’s career choices present an overlap patent in his service as the first (‘imposing’) legal adviser of the Jewish state’s Foreign Ministry (1948-1967). This career path appears to attest to a perfect synthesis of his two engagements. In this paper, while illuminating less familiar sides of Rosenne’s early life and work, I argue that appearances are misleading. Rosenne’s two engagements – Jewish nationalism and international law – undoubtedly coexisted; this, however, was no peaceful cohabitation. The one did not drive the other; if anything, each existed despite the other. They ran separate courses; and they rarely met. For Rosenne, synthesis of these two engagements came late, and was the product of a personal and ideological, transformation; it came, moreover, at a cost. Rosenne’s transformation sheds light on Israel’s early international legal outlook; underscores 1948 as a cusp in the interaction between international legal and Jewish history; exposes the plurality of terms of Jewish engagement with – and disengagement from – international law; and portrays international law itself as a field of political Jewish contestation.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
EU Development Cooperation has evolved over half a century. In this time, this policy has undergone dramatic change. There can be no doubt that initially, the EEC and its MS started from a paternalistic and in a certain sense also egoistic attitude. By the way, in this attitude the EEC and its MS were not alone. It was a rather common relationship between “donor” countries and recipients. Now, this situation has changed. The respective process has taken place slowly, often even nearly imperceptibly, but over the years these changes were substantial. The focus is now on a truly egalitarian partnership. On a world-wide scale, the EU has now become one of the main actors in development cooperation and this holds true also when it comes to conceiving new instruments and avenues for this policy. At the moment, intense discussions are under way on how to re-conceive development cooperation for the future. In this, important contributions are coming from the EU. The development policy has become a highly valuable asset for the EU, in particular as far as its image on the international scene is concerned. This essay has been conceived as a stock-taking about past discussions and achievements in this field. At the same time, however, a focus is set on possible future developments in this area.
When it comes to foreign relations, the Roberts Court has trust issues. As far as the Court is concerned, everyone—the President, Congress, the lower courts, plaintiffs—has played hard and fast with the rules, taking advantage of the Court’s functionalist approaches to foreign affairs issues. This seems to be the message of the Roberts Court foreign affairs law jurisprudence.
The Roberts Court has been active in foreign affairs law, deciding cases on the detention and trial of enemy combatants, foreign sovereign immunity, the domestic effect of treaties, the extraterritorial reach of federal statutes, the preemption of state laws, and the scope of the political question doctrine, among others. Looking back at those decisions, this Article notes and explores a stark and surprising trend. Across a string of decisions, from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld through Medellin v. Texas, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., and Bond v. United States, the Court has jettisoned its traditional foreign affairs functionalism in favor of formalism.
The shift, as the Article explains, is not merely rhetorical or stylistic. Embedded within these opinions is a deep distrust of the executive branch, Congress, and the courts. And embraced by a surprising number of Justices across different wings of the Court, this formalism of distrust has brought about constraints on the discretion of the federal government that are deeper and more powerful than have been seen in some time. Foreign affairs formalism, with all of its implications, is the new reality—one that must be understood and watched.
The defining feature of foreign relations law is that it is distinct from domestic law. Courts have recognized that foreign affairs are political by their nature and thus unsuited to adjudication, that state and local involvement is inappropriate in foreign affairs, and that the President has the lead role in foreign policymaking. In other words, they have said that foreign relations are exceptional. But foreign relations exceptionalism — the belief that legal issues arising from foreign relations are functionally, doctrinally, and even methodologically distinct from those arising in domestic policy — was not always the prevailing view. In the early twentieth century, a revolution took place in foreign relations law. Under the intellectual leadership of Justice Sutherland, the Supreme Court adopted the idea that foreign affairs are an exceptional sphere of policymaking, separate from domestic law and best suited to exclusively federal, and primarily executive, control. The exceptionalist approach has dominated foreign relations law since that time, but it has always had questionable foundations.
Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a second revolution in foreign relations law, one whose scope and significance rival the Sutherland revolution, but one that has gone largely unrecognized. Over the last twenty-five years, the Supreme Court has increasingly rejected the idea that foreign affairs are different from domestic affairs. Instead, it has started treating foreign relations issues as if they were run-of-the-mill domestic policy issues, suitable for judicial review and governed by ordinary separation of powers and statutory interpretation principles. This “normalization” of foreign relations law has taken place in three waves. It began with the end of the Cold War and the rise of globalization in the 1990s. It continued — counterintuitively — during the war on terror, despite the strong case for exceptionalism in a time of exigency. And it has proceeded, during the Roberts Court, to undermine justiciability, federalism, and executive dominance — the very heart of exceptionalism.
This Article documents the normalization of foreign relations law over the last twenty-five years. It demonstrates how normalization can be applied to a wide variety of doctrines and debates in foreign relations law, ranging from the proper interpretation of Youngstown to the applicability of administrative law doctrines in foreign affairs to reforms in the foreign sovereign immunity and state secrets regimes. Ultimately, this Article argues that courts and scholars should embrace normalization as the new paradigm for foreign relations law.
Fifth Annual ASIL Research Forum
October 23-24, 2015, Washington, DC
The American Society of International Law calls for submissions of scholarly paper proposals for the ASIL Research Forum to be held in Washington, DC
The Research Forum, a Society initiative introduced in 2011, aims to provide a setting for the presentation and focused discussion of works-in-progress. All ASIL members are invited to attend the Forum, whether presenting a paper or not.
Papers may be on any topic related to international and transnational law and should be unpublished (for purposes of the call, publication to an electronic database such as SSRN is not considered publication). Interdisciplinary projects, empirical studies, and jointly authored papers are welcome.
Proposals should be submitted online. Interested paper-givers should submit an abstract (no more than 500 words in length) summarizing the scholarly paper to be presented at the Forum. Abstracts must be submitted in MS Word and include 1) cover page with the name, institutional affiliation, professional position, and contact information for the author(s) and 2) a separate abstract that does not include the author's name. Review of the abstracts will be blind. Papers that do not follow these guidelines will not be considered. Notifications of acceptance will go out in mid-July.
Submission deadline is June 22, 2015.
Papers accepted for presentation will be assembled into panels. The organizers welcome volunteers to serve as discussants who will comment on the papers. All authors of accepted papers will be required to submit a draft paper four weeks before the Research Forum. Accepted authors must commit to being present on both Friday, October 23 and Saturday, October 24, 2015. Draft papers will be posted in advance of the Forum on an asil.org website accessible only by participants in the Forum.
- Colin B. Picker & Lisa Toohey, Introduction: China in the international economic order: new directions and changing paradigms
- Randall Peerenboom, Revamping the China model for the post-global financial crisis era: the emerging post-Washington, post-Beijing consensus
- Lisa Toohey, Regarding China: images of China in the international economic order
- Marcia Don Harpaz, China and international tribunals: onward from the WTO
- Colin B. Picker, China's legal cultural relationship to international economic law: multiple and conflicting paradigms
- Henry Gao, From the Doha round to the China round: China's growing role in WTO negotiations
- Timothy Webster, China's implementation of WTO decisions
- Junji Nakagawa, The emerging rules on state capitalism and their implications for China's use of SOEs
- Shin-yi Peng, Standards as a means to technological leadership? China's ICT standards in the context of the international economic order
- Ross P. Buckley & Weihuan Zhou, China's negotiation of the international economic legal order
- Justin O'Brien, George Gilligan & Jonathan Greenacre, Is the rise of Chinese state capital a regulatory game changer? The example of inward investment capital to Australia
- Julian Gruin, Contesting the liberal imaginary? China's role in the international monetary system
- Xuezhu Bai & Nicholas Morris, China, economic Taoism and development: different paradigms, different outcomes
- Vivienne Bath, Chinese companies and outbound investment – the balance between domestic and international concerns
- Deborah Healey, Mergers with conditions in China: caution, control or industrial policy?
- Leon E. Trakman, Geo-politics, China and investor-state arbitration
- Bryan Mercurio, China, intellectual property rights and the WTO: challenging but not a challenge to the existing legal order
Monday, May 11, 2015
- René Provost, Teetering on the Edge of Legal Nihilism: Russia and the Evolving European Human Rights Regime
- Naomi Roht-Arriaza, After Amnesties Are Gone: Latin American National Courts and the New Contours of the Fight Against Impunity
- Carrie Booth Walling, Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Intervention
- William H. Meyer, Testing Theories of Labor Rights and Development
- Michael Freeman, World Poverty: Rights, Obligations, Institutions, Motivations
- Ronli Sifris, Involuntary Sterilization of HIV-Positive Women: An Example of Intersectional Discrimination
- Elizabeth S. Barnert, Eric Stover, Gery Ryan, & Paul Chung, Long Journey Home: Family Reunification Experiences of the Disappeared Children of El Salvador
- Damiano de Felice, Business and Human Rights Indicators to Measure the Corporate Responsibility to Respect: Challenges and Opportunities
This edited volume presents comparative research on how the courts in Southeast Europe apply international law. After the introductory Part I, Part II discusses specific areas of international law, notably the law of Association Agreements between the EU and third countries, the law of the World Trade Organization, and international environmental law (the Aarhus Convention). Part III consists of country reports on how national courts in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia are currently applying international law.
- Saliha Belmessous, The Paradox of an Empire by Treaty
- Arthur Weststeijn, "Love Alone Is Not Enough": Treaties in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Colonial Expansion
- Daniel Richter, To "Clear the King's and Indians' Title": Seventeenth-Century Origins of North American Land Cession Treaties
- Tamar Herzog, Struggling Over Indians: Territorial Conflict and Alliance-Making in the Heartland of South America (17th-18th Centuries)
- Alain Beaulieu, The Acquisition of Aboriginal Land in Canada: The Genealogy of an Ambivalent System (1600-1867)
- Robert Travers, A British Empire by Treaty in Eighteenth Century India
- Rebecca Shumway, Palavers and Treaty-Making in the British Acquisition of the Gold Coast Colony (West Africa)
- Saliha Belmessous, The Tradition of Treaty-Making in Australian History
- Damen Ward, "A text for every agitator amongst the natives": Maori property, settler politics and the Maori franchise in the 1850s
- Paul Patton, The 'lessons of history': the ideal of treaty in settler colonial societies
In order to be effective, international tribunals should be perceived as legitimate adjudicators. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights provides in-depth analyses on whether European consensus is capable of enhancing the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the method and value of European consensus, it examines the practicalities of consensus identification and application and discusses whether State-counting is appropriate in human rights adjudication. With over 30 interviews from judges of the ECtHR and qualitative analyses of the case law, this book gives readers access to firsthand and up-to-date information and provides an understanding of how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
- Paul Tiedemann, Is There a Human Right to Freedom of Religion?
- Jean Chrysostome K. Kiyala, Challenges of Reintegrating Self-Demobilised Child Soldiers in North Kivu Province: Prospects for Accountability and Reconciliation via Restorative Justice Peacemaking Circles
- Irene I. Hadiprayitno, Behind Transformation: The Right to Food, Agricultural Modernisation and Indigenous Peoples in Papua, Indonesia
- Eric K. Leonard, Global Governance and the State: Domestic Enforcement of Universal Jurisdiction
- Michalinos Zembylas, Panayiota Charalambous, Stalo Lesta, & Constadina Charalambous, Primary School Teachers’ Understandings of Human Rights and Human Rights Education (HRE) in Cyprus: An Exploratory Study