This editorial addresses the current state and prospects of international criminal law (ICL) scholarship. The moment is opportune for such a reflection. The questions raised by the production and dissemination of international legal scholarship have gained prominence lately and the professional functions of international legal scholars have been the subject of renewed interest and debate. To give an impulse to a similar debate in ICL, I will try to capture the zeitgeist of its academia and offer some observations on the positioning of ICL scholarship vis-à-vis practice. Perspectives from this specialized field may enrich the existing conceptualizations of international legal scholarship and provide a new angle on its place within the profession.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
The Junior International Law Scholars Association (JILSA) is holding its annual meeting on Friday, January 22, 2016, at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. JILSA is an informal network of junior scholars at mostly American law schools who get together annually for a self-funded workshop. Junior faculty and fellows interested in presenting at the meeting should email proposals to MJ Durkee and Jen Daskal by Monday, October 26.
The details: If you are interested in presenting a working draft at the meeting, please send us the title, an abstract, and an indication of how far along the paper is at the time of submission. Because of the nature of the workshop, we can only include working drafts that have not yet been accepted for publication. If you are interested in presenting on an early stage project, please let us know the working title and a few lines about the idea you are pursuing. Finally, if you are interested in being a discussant, please let us know. We will do our best to get back to everyone in November, and we will expect participants to distribute their working drafts by no later than Friday, January 8. Hotel information for the conference will be distributed later this fall.
As an activity, interpretation in international law is ubiquitous, involving all types of facts, processes, doctrines, values, and theories. As a concept, however, international legal interpretation has played a much smaller role. Until recently, international lawyers largely associated interpretation with a limited set of objects (treaties), methods (those found in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), and functions (the exposition of meanings). In this short chapter, I problematize such traditional understandings of interpretation in international law. I explain how standard accounts oversimplify interpretation’s role in the treaty context; international law has moved beyond the Vienna Convention’s text to include larger questions about treaty interpretation’s scope, nature, and purpose. At the same time, interpretation’s fixation on treaties understates its potential to reach additional objects, methods, and functions. The proliferation of international tribunals, institutions, and non-treaty instruments offer new objects for interpretation that require methodologies beyond the Vienna Convention, whether drawn from law or other disciplines. And, while the core of interpretation retains its expository function, the concept can (and does) serve other functions, be they inventive, relational, or even existential. Taken together, I conclude with a call for more attention to the work interpretation does for international law. As States and scholars continue to elaborate a deeper and broader understanding of this concept, it is poised to occupy an even more central place in our understanding of the international legal order and the discourse that sustains it.
Jewish individuals and organisations played a cardinal role in making and promoting the 1948 Genocide Convention. The early attitude of the Jewish state—established a few months before the Convention’s conclusion—has not hitherto been explored. This analysis reconstructs Israel’s involvement in the 1951 advisory proceedings at the International Court of Justice concerning the Convention. Based on Ministry of Foreign Affairs archives and Court records, it demonstrates that contrary to what scholarship on subsequent episodes assumes or implies, Israel had no particular attachment to, nor was it vested in, the Convention. Rather, its attitude ranged from indifference and disinterest to scepticism and hostility. This allowed Israeli diplomats to utilise the Convention as a means to affect other, neither urgent nor imperative, foreign policy ends.
- David Martin Jones & M.L.R. Smith, Return to reason: reviving political realism in western foreign policy
- Stefan Auer, Carl Schmitt in the Kremlin: the Ukraine crisis and the return of geopolitics
- Luis Simón, Europe, the rise of Asia and the future of the transatlantic relationship
- Jean-Yves Haine, A new Gaullist moment? European bandwagoning and international polarity
- Toby Greene, Israel's two states debate
- Robert S. Snyder, The Arab uprising and the persistence of monarchy
- Lei Yu, China's strategic partnership with Latin America: a fulcrum in China's rise
- Scott Fitzsimmons, Just war theory and private security companies
- Lauren Bruffaerts, A diamantine struggle: redefining conflict diamonds in the Kimberley Process
- Andrew T. Wolff, The future of NATO enlargement after the Ukraine crisis
- James Strong, Interpreting the Syria vote: parliament and British foreign policy
- Jane Kinninmont, Unrest in the Arab world: why the 2011 uprisings still matter
- Tim Summers, Society and politics in China today
- Chidi Oguamanam, Breeding Apples for Oranges: Africa's Misplaced Priority Over Plant Breeders’ Rights
- Hans Morten Haugen, Inappropriate Processes and Unbalanced Outcomes: Plant Variety Protection in Africa Goes Beyond UPOV 1991 Requirements
- Carl Benedikt Frey, Atif Ansar & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, Defining and Measuring the “Market for Brands”: Are Emerging Economies Catching up?
- Ezieddin Elmahjub, Situating Intellectual Property Policy Into a Human Development Paradigm
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The Sovereignty of Human Rights advances a legal theory of international human rights that defines their nature and purpose in relation to the structure and operation of international law. Professor Macklem argues that the mission of international human rights law is to mitigate adverse consequences produced by the international legal deployment of sovereignty to structure global politics into an international legal order. The book contrasts this legal conception of international human rights with moral conceptions that conceive of human rights as instruments that protect universal features of what it means to be a human being. The book also takes issue with political conceptions of international human rights that focus on the function or role that human rights plays in global political discourse. It demonstrates that human rights traditionally thought to lie at the margins of international human rights law - minority rights, indigenous rights, the right of self-determination, social rights, labor rights, and the right to development - are central to the normative architecture of the field.
- Jessica Williams, Addressing child labour: reflections on the WTO’s role
- Thaddeus Manu, Building national initiatives of compulsory licences: reflecting on the Indian jurisprudence as a model for developing countries
- Amade Roberts Amana, The liberalization of air services: prospects and challenges for the Indian economy
International organisations often lack operational capacity, but may command significant normative power over states. By contrast, states have organs with significant operational capacity. Adoption of sanctions by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter would remain a dead letter without enlisting the capacity of states to implement these measures on the ground. The UN and its member states thus both contribute to a single harmful outcome. International responsibility for this is shared in practice, as demonstrated by recent developments in domestic and regional international courts: states are held responsible by domestic or regional international courts, and are forced to disobey the Security Council in order to comply with their human rights obligations. In turn, the states put pressure on the Security Council to reform the offending regime, forcing the UN to comply with its own international obligations.
- Forum: Historicising the Social in International Thought
- Patricia Owens, Introduction: Historicising the Social in International Thought
- Patricia Owens, Method or madness? Sociolatry in international thought
- Jens Bartelson, Towards a genealogy of ‘society’ in International Relations
- Martin Weber, On the history and politics of the social turn
- Charles Butcher & Ryan Griffiths, Alternative international systems? System structure and violent conflict in nineteenth-century West Africa, Southeast Asia, and South Asia
- Egor Fedotov, Weak language norm(s) versus domestic interests: Why Ukraine behaves the way it does
- Katharine M. Millar, Death does not become her: An examination of the public construction of female American soldiers as liminal figures
- Gerard van der Ree, Being-in-the-world of the international
- Cian O’Driscoll, At all costs and in spite of all terror? The victory of just war
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
- Special Issue: Interpreting Foreign Policy: National, Comparative, and Regional Studies
- Mark Bevir & Oliver Daddow, Interpreting foreign policy: National, comparative and regional studies
- András Szalai, ‘Essentially sound and fundamental’: Historicizing the logic of deterrence in the counterforce debate
- Oliver Daddow, Constructing a ‘great’ role for Britain in an age of austerity: Interpreting coalition foreign policy, 2010–2015
- Elin Hellquist, Interpreting sanctions in Africa and Southeast Asia
- Falk Ostermann, The end of ambivalence and the triumph of pragmatism? Franco-British defence cooperation and European and Atlantic defence policy traditions
- Elisa Lopez-Lucia, Regional powers and regional security governance: An interpretive perspective on the policies of Nigeria and Brazil
- Matteo Dian, Interpreting Japan’s contested memory: Conservative and progressive traditions
- Ekaterina Koldunova, Russia as a Euro-Pacific power: Dilemmas of Russian foreign policy decision-making
- Frank Gaenssmantel, Interpreting change: International challenges and variations in foreign policy beliefs as explanations for shifts in China’s policy towards the European Union
- Harold Hongju Koh & Todd F. Buchwald, The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective
- Editorial Comment
- Alan O. Sykes, Economic “Necessity” in International Law
- Current Developments
- Jacob Katz Cogan, Stabilization and the Expanding Scope of the Security Council's Work
- Sienho Yee, The 2013 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice
- International Decisions
- Stephen M. Schwebel & Ruth Teitelbaum, The Latest Award from the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: The Line Between Approximation of Damages and Ruling ex Aequo et Bono
- Abhimanyu George Jain, Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
- Chiara Giorgetti, Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation, Yukos Universal Ltd. (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation, Veteran Petroleum Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation
- Alexia Solomou, Cyprus v. Turkey
- Riccardo Pavoni, Simoncioni v. Germany
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Kristina Daugirdas & Julian Davis Mortenson, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Recent Books on International Law
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, The International Judicial Function in Its (In)finite Variety, reviewing Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, by Yuval Shany; The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, edited by Christian J. Tams and James Sloan; and The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, edited by Cesare P.R. Romano, Karen J. Alter, and Yuval Shany
- Beth A. Simmons, reviewing Making Human Rights a Reality, by Emilie M. Hafner-Burton
- Geir Ulfstein, reviewing Transparency in International Law, edited by Andrea Bianchi and Anne Peters
- Hurst Hannum, reviewing Surpassing the Sovereign State: The Wealth, Self-Rule, and Security Advantages of Partially Independent Territories, by David A. Rezvani
- John E. Noyes, reviewing The Sources of International Law, by Hugh Thirlway
- Donald H. Regan, Explaining Trade Agreements: The Practitioners' Story and the Standard Model
- Kent Jones & Yunwei Gai, Patterns of Representation in WTO Committee Chairs, 1995–2012
- Tania Voon, Exploring the Meaning of Trade-Restrictiveness in the WTO
- Sherzod Shadikhodjaev, Renewable Energy and Government Support: Time to ‘Green’ the SCM Agreement?
- Jappe Eckhardt & Dirk De Bièvre, Boomerangs over Lac Léman: Transnational Lobbying and Foreign Venue Shopping in WTO Dispute Settlement
In recent years, North American and European nations have sought to legally remake religion in other countries through an unprecedented array of international initiatives. Policymakers have rallied around the notion that the fostering of religious freedom, interfaith dialogue, religious tolerance, and protections for religious minorities are the keys to combating persecution and discrimination. Beyond Religious Freedom persuasively argues that these initiatives create the very social tensions and divisions they are meant to overcome.
Elizabeth Shakman Hurd looks at three critical channels of state-sponsored intervention: international religious freedom advocacy, development assistance and nation building, and international law. She shows how these initiatives make religious difference a matter of law, resulting in a divide that favors forms of religion authorized by those in power and excludes other ways of being and belonging. In exploring the dizzying power dynamics and blurred boundaries that characterize relations between "expert religion," "governed religion," and "lived religion," Hurd charts new territory in the study of religion in global politics.
The United Nations at 70: Key Challenges for International Law
Call for papers - submissions close 1 October 2015.
The United Nations is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. The world continues to grapple with challenges posed by violent conflicts, terrorism, human migration, environmental disasters, and severe human rights violations. In addition, recent financial crises and technological advances pose growing threats to the international community. Against this background, the 70th anniversary of the most important international organisation presents an opportunity to reflect on the role of international law in addressing these problems, and to evaluate the need for reform in the UN and its institutions.
This international conference, jointly organised by Fudan Law School and Deakin Law School, will focus on current international law issues on the following themes: human rights, international criminal law, natural resources law, trade, international conflict, and international dispute resolution.
We invite papers from academics and researchers on any topic under these themes for presentation at the conference.
Conference directors: Professor Sandeep Gopalan, Dean of Law and Head of Deakin Law School and Professor Zhang Naigen, Fudan Law School
Conference date: Shanghai, 9-10 November 2015
Submissions: scholars should email a brief abstract of under 500 words to firstname.lastname@example.org
Closing date: 1 October 2015
Additional notes: please put 'Fudan Conference' in the subject line of the email
Notification: selected presenters will be notified by 7 October 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Völkerrechtsgeschichte ist international und global ein aufstrebendes Fach. Die hier gesammelten Aufsätze thematisieren die Geschichte des Völkerrechts in der Spannung zwischen den beiden Polen Universalität und Partikularität des Völkerrechts.
Der erste Teil der hier aufgenommenen Aufsätze ist unmittelbar oder mittelbar Fragen der Universalität des Völkerrechts und einer universellen oder globalen Völkerrechtshistoriographie gewidmet. In den Aufsätzen des zweiten Teils werden unterschiedliche Fragestellungen des partikularen europäischen Völkerrechts erörtert. Die Aufsätze sind bis auf den fünften Aufsatz zwischen 2008 und 2015 erschienen. Der Band schließt an den 2009 in dieser Reihe erschienenen ersten Aufsatzband „Von der Staatengesellschaft zur Weltrepublik?“ an.
- October 9, 2015: Stephen Neff (Univ. of Edinburgh - Law), An International Community: Is there any such thing?
- October 16, 2015: Chandra Lekha Sriram (Univ. of East London - Law and International Relations), Does transitional justice affect democratic institution-building
- October 23, 2015: Patrick Capps (Univ. of Bristol - Law), Legal Idealism and Global Administration
- October 30, 2015: Laurence Lustgarten (Univ. of Oxford - Centre for Socio-Legal Studies), Arms Trade Treaty: Achievements, Failings, Future
- November 6, 2015: Valentina Vadi (Lancaster Univ. - Law), International Economic Courts and the Protection of Cultural Heritage
- November 13, 2015: Neha Jain (Univ. of Minnesota - Law), Judicial Law-Making at the International Criminal Courts: Experimenting with General Principles of Law
- November 27, 2015: Justin Desautels-Stein (Univ. of Colorado - Law), Structuralism and International Legal Thought
- Judith Butler, Human shields
- B.S. Chimni, Peace through law: lessons from 1914
- Ratna Kapur, Precarious desires and ungrievable lives: human rights and postcolonial critiques of legal justice
- Daniel Joyce & Gabrielle Simm, Zero Dark Thirty: international law, film and representation
- Books etc.
- Book Symposium: Mark Neocleous, War Power, Police Power (Edinburgh UP, 2014)
- Illan rua Wall, War Power, Police Power: a paradigmatic book
- Caroline Holmqvist, Always already war power, police power
- Yari Lanci, Systematic colonisation and the secret(s) of the capitalist mode of production
- Claudia Aradau, War, police, critique
- Mark Neocleous, Red and dead: reply to critics
- Barry Hill, In the Peace Park
Monday, September 14, 2015
Chehtman: Occupation Courts, Jus Ad Bellum Considerations, and Non-State Actors: Revisiting the Ethics of Military Occupation
This article provides a normative appraisal of the law of military occupation by looking into occupation courts and their legitimacy. It focuses on two cornerstones of the current regulation of war: the principle of equality of belligerents, that is, the potential relevance of jus ad bellum considerations on the in bello rights of occupants, and the normative force of the traditional distinction between states and non-state armed groups, specially in conflicts not of an international character. Against the currently predominant neoclassical position in just war theory, it argues in favor of the moral equality of just and unjust occupants. Against the orthodox position in international law, it advocates the symmetrical treatment of states and non-state actors fighting internal armed conflicts, at least in terms of the rights they may claim on the territories under their control. It concludes by appraising the way in which this moral landscape should be translated into legal norms.
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Inaugural Launch Issue & International Conference on ISIS and Implications for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (June 2016)
The editors of the Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (AYBHRHL) and Koninklijke Brill NV Publishers invite submissions for the Inaugural Launch Issue of the Yearbook. The Launch will take place at an international conference due to take place in London during June 2016.
The Yearbook welcomes submissions in a wide variety of human rights and humanitarian issues including those focusing on contemporary socio-economic, legal and political developments impacting upon human rights and humanitarian law within Asia and globally. The Yearbook would also welcome submissions based on theoretical perspectives on human rights and humanitarian law with specific relevance to Asia.
AYBHRHL consists of the following sections:
Each volume of the Yearbook is focused on a particular theme. The theme for Volume 1 is: ISIS and Implications for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (This will be the focus of the international conference, the details of which are provided below).
Each Volume would publish a selection of Articles covering aspects of human rights law and humanitarian law with a broad regional focus on Asia.
Asian State Practices:
This section would cover range of State Practices in the field of human rights and humanitarian law.
This section would cover recent developments in the field of human rights and humanitarian law.
Each Volume aims to review books on human rights and humanitarian law, relevant to the Asian region.
ISIS and Implications for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
International Conference, Summer 2016
The editors of the Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (AYBHRHL) and Koninklijke Brill NV Publishers invite submissions for the International Conference due to take place in London in June 2016. Selected papers from the conference will be published in Vol.1 of AYBHRHL (2016). The conference focuses upon ISIS and human rights and humanitarian law issues arising from the conflict in Syria and Iraq. The conference themes can relate to any aspect involving ISIS including international and transnational terrorism, enslavement, prostitution and sexual slavery, torture, extrajudicial killings and human rights violations, violations of international humanitarian law, as well as Sharia law and the Sunni/Shia conflict of the region.
Relevant topics for the conference include, but are not limited to:
- ISIS and international terrorism
- ISIS and the enslavement, prostitution and sexual slavery within Asia and Europe
- ISIS and Jihadi Brides
- ISIS and the use of social media
- Human rights violations in the Conflict in Iraq and Syria
- The applicability and ramifications for International humanitarian law in Syria and Iraq
- ISIS as an ‘Islamic’ Caliphate
- Religious perspectives on the conflict in Iraq and Syria
- Prevent strategy and counter-terrorism
- ISIS and the role of intergovernmental organizations, governments and security services in counter-terrorism
As noted above, selected papers from the conference will be published in Vol.1 of AYBHRHL (2016). Abstracts should be submitted on the basis that written papers will be available for review and publication.
Submission of General Articles and Recent Developments for Volume 1: 4 January 2016
Submission of paper conference abstracts: 15 January 2016
Notification of acceptance of conference paper abstracts: 1 March 2016
Notification of acceptance of General Articles and Recent Developments and submission of completed conference papers: 12 May, 2016
Instructions for Submission:
General Articles and Recent Developments:
Articles for Volume 1 to be submitted to: Assistant Editor, Dr Meryl Dickinson, Brunel Law School, Brunel University London e-mail: Meryl.Dickinson@Brunel.ac.uk .
Submissions for General Articles should be between 8,000-10,000 words.
Submissions to Recent Developments should be between 3,000- 5,000 words.
Submission of paper proposals for the International conference:
This should include a paper proposal of not more than 500 words with a brief CV or biography. These should be submitted to: Assistant Editor, Dr Meryl Dickinson, Brunel Law School, Brunel University London e-mail: Meryl.Dickinson@Brunel.ac.uk
Accepted papers for publication should be between 8,000-10,000 words to be submitted to: Assistant Editor, Dr Meryl Dickinson, Brunel Law School, Brunel University London e-mail: Meryl.Dickinson@Brunel.ac.uk.
- Chiara Giorgetti, Introduction
- Chiara Giorgetti, The Challenges and Recusals at the International Court of Justice
- Meg Kinnear & Frauke Nitschke, Disqualification of Arbitrators Under the ICSID Convention and Rules
- Sarah Grimmer, The Determination of Arbitrators Challenges by the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
- Lee M. Caplan, Arbitrator Challenges at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
- Loretta Malintoppi & Andrea Carlevaris, Challenges of Arbitrators, Lessons from the ICC
- Gregory J. Spak & Ron Kendler, Selection and Recusal in the WTO Dispute Settlement System
- Makane Moïse Mbengue, Challenges of Judges in International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Romain Zamour, Issue Conflicts and the Reasonable Expectation of an Open Mind: The Challenge Decision in Devas v. India and its Impact
- Judith Levine, Late-in-the-Day Arbitrator Challenges and Resignations: Anecdotes and Antidotes
- Luke A. Sobota, Repeat Arbitrator Appointments in International Investment Disputes
- Charles N. Brower, Sarah Melikian & Michael P. Daly, Tall and Small Tales of a Challenged Arbitrator
- Andrew B. Loewenstein, The Approach of Counsel to Challenges in International Disputes
- Hansel T. Pham & M. Imad Khan, Challenges to Party Representatives and Counsel Before International Courts and Tribunals
- Lucy Reed, John Choong & Chan Yong Wei, Challenges to Arbitrators in Asia: The Position Before the Singapore and Hong Kong Courts
- Jonathan Hamilton, Francisco X. Jijon & Ernesto E. Corzo, Arbitrators Challenges in Latin America
European Society of International Law Research Forum
21 - 22 April 2016
Koç University Law School and the Center for Global Public Law, Istanbul
Call for Papers
The 2016 ESIL Research Forum will take place on Thursday 21 and Friday 22 April at Koç University Law School and the Center for Global Public Law in Istanbul.
The Research Forum is a scholarly conference which promotes engagement with research in progress by members of the Society. It has a small and intensive format. The Research Forum targets in particular scholars at an early stage of their careers, especially advanced PhD students and post-doctoral researchers. Approximately 15 - 20 papers will be selected from among the submissions and, during the Research Forum, paper presenters will receive comments on their papers from members of the ESIL Board and invited experts.
The 2016 Research Forum calls for papers addressing the theme of the making of international law, including the following set of issues:
- Interaction between sources of international law
- Customary international law, its formation and nature
- New sources of international law in international law making – formalism and beyond
- International organizations and international law making
- Non-state actors and international law making
- Fragmentation and sources of international law
- The legitimacy of the sources of binding obligation in international law
- The role of comparative law in relation to international law making
- Specific problems relating to international law making in particular subject areas such as human rights law, environmental law, international trade law, etc.
Papers which address any dimensions of the call, including through interdisciplinary research and methods, and through historical, theoretical or empirical approaches, will be given serious consideration. We welcome papers that propose to redefine or re-imagine our understanding of the terms of the call and their meaning in the current context.
Abstracts of not more than 750 words should be submitted by interested applicants to ESILRF2016@ku.edu.tr by 1 November 2015. Please include your name, email address and a one-page curriculum vitae with your abstract.
Successful applicants will be notified by email by 15 December 2015. Complete drafts of papers will be required by 15 March 2016. Papers may in due course be published in an edited collection.
Successful applicants will be expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation. Partial financial support may be available on a needs basis for a limited number of scholars. Scholars selected to present a paper who have exhausted other potential sources of funds can submit a request to the Selection Committee for financial support with an explanation of why they are in need of assistance.
Once selected, applicants will be informed of several hotels that offer preferential rates to Research Forum participants. Lunch on both days will be provided, and a dinner for presenters, commentators and ESIL Board members will be hosted by Koç University Law School on the evening of Thursday 21 April.
Call for Papers: Transparency vs Confidentiality in International Economic Law: Looking for an Appropriate Balance
Transparency vs Confidentiality in International Economic Law: Looking for an Appropriate Balance
Friday 20 November 2015
Ravenna, School of Law - Via Oberdan 1
SPONSORHIP: Interest Group on International Economic Law of the European Society of International Law; Italian Branch of the International Law Association; Camera di Commercio Ravenna; Eurosportello Ravenna
With the Special Support of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
With the collaboration of Fondazione Flaminia - Ravenna (Fondazione per l'Università in Romagna), and the School of Law and Department of Legal Sciences - Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: Peter-Tobias Stoll, Elisa Baroncini, Marina Trunk-Fedorova, Luigi Malatesta, Pietro Manzini, Marion Panizzon, Attila Tanzi, Gabriella Venturini, Alessandra Zanobetti
Transparency has firmly acquired a role of key concept and in statu nascendi principle in international relations and for the international community. It is clearly perceived and considered as a positive value, more and more relevant for the appropriate administration of the public good, and the definition, interpretation and application of international law, deeply associated with legitimacy, accountability, participatory democracy and good governance.
The debate on the importance of transparency has been constantly gaining a prominent place in international economic law (IEL), as WTO law, investment law and regional trade agreements are more and more relevant for non-trade values, that are inextricably linked with free trade and investments' protection within the model of sustainable development nowadays universally promoted by States, International Organizations, NGOs, the business community and, more generally, civil society.
However, the need for confidentiality keeps being raised and considered by governmental and intergovernmental actors and, in particular, the business community. Governmental actors argue they try to keep a room for maneuver; business actors have concerns that a full disclosure of information can have negative impact and even completely ruin their business and plead therefore for limiting transparency and keeping confidential certain proceedings.
The Conference on "Transparency vs Confidentiality in International Economic Law: Looking for an Appropriate Balance" aims at presenting the state of the art of the transparency v. confidentiality debate with specific reference to IEL, organizing an ad hoc call for papers to gather scholars conducting research on this topic, and practitioners (from governmental and intergovernmental institutions, the business community, the NGOs' world) having to face every day the ever growing demand for transparency and the still present request for confidentiality.
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Scientific Committee of the International Conference "Transparency vs Confidentiality in International Economic Law: Looking for an Appropriate Balance" organizes a call for papers -the papers should be written in English, unpublished and in an advanced stage of completion.
The call for papers should address one of the following four issues:
I) Transparency v. Confidentiality in IEL International Negotiations
The recently emerged debate on the conduct of the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), the EU/Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the EU/US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has importantly raised the issue of information, access to negotiations' documents and participation of civil society in the diplomatic activities concerning such important IEL negotiations. Another recent example is the negotiation process on Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) initiated by a number of WTO members, who now receive critics for lack of transparency not only from their nationals but also from other WTO members. It is thus necessary to explore the issue from the point of view of the major international actors, the business community, NGOs, and, more generally, civil society.
II) Transparency v. Confidentiality in the Activities of IEL International Organizations
There are various, highly relevant, intergovernmental international organizations specifically dealing with IEL issues. The important and delicate topics of their daily activities raises the issue of the level of transparency that should characterize their work. Scholars, practitioners, and, more
generally, civil society are thus invited to present papers' proposals on the level of transparency and confidentiality which actually is or should be applied by International Organizations working in the field of international economic relations, such as the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the international bodies managing investment proceedings, like ICSID and UNCITRAL
III) Transparency v. Confidentiality in IEL Arbitration and Judicial Proceedings
It happens more and more often that IEL international adjudication proceedings -be they devoted to free trade, or investment protection- deal with the relation between free trade and investment protection, on the one hand, and non-trade or non-commercial values, as environmental protection, labour standards, the State's right to regulate, more generally the respect of human rights, on the other hand. Such a situation has provoked the greatest interest of civil society to participate in those international proceedings as amicus curiae, through their presence during the hearings of the judicial/arbitral mechanisms and their access to the disputants' submissions. It is therefore suggested that scholars and practitioners present proposals for papers on the Transparency v. Confidentiality debate in IEL Arbitration and Judicial Proceedings, in the WTO system, in investment proceedings, in dispute settlement mechanisms provided for in RTAs.
IV) Transparency v. Confidentiality in Parliamentary Discussions concerning IEL Negotiations on Treaty Law and Soft Law
The high relevance that IEL treaty and soft law instruments have for the domestic policies of the major international actors has provoked an intense debate within the parliamentary assemblies on the necessity to participate in the definition of the IEL International Documents not simply when ratifying or approving IEL agreements but also during the negotiation phase. It is thus necessary to focus research on the approach, for instance, of the European Parliament, the US Congress, the Canadian Parliament, etc. on the need and level of participation and access to internal documents concerning negotiations of IEL treaties and IEL soft law tools. It is also interesting to compare which possibilities national parliaments have to influence negotiations process.
The Scientific Committee intends to publish a volume collecting the selected papers and comments of the discussants, and will thus submit the manuscript to a leading international publisher which has already expressed interest to our editorial initiatives.
Paper Submission Procedure
Senior and junior scholars (including PhD students) are invited to participate to the call for papers of the International Conference "Transparency vs Confidentiality in International Economic Law: Looking for an Appropriate Balance" . Papers will be selected on the basis of the submitted abstracts. Only one abstract per author will be considered.
Abstracts must not exceed 800 words, and have to be submitted to the following mail addresses:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com.
In addition to the abstract, each submission should contain a separate file containing information on:
- The section of the call for papers for which the abstract is submitted
- The author’s name and affiliation
- A short (one page) author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications
- The author’s contact details, including email address and phone number
- The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 30 September 2015
- Successful applicants will be informed by 8 October 2015
- The deadline for the submission of the papers of accepted abstracts for the International Conference is 10 November 2015
- The deadline for the submission of final papers for publication is 2 January 2016.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
- Doctrine – Débats - Spécial colloque Après les arrêts INSERM
- Jean-Baptiste Racine, Introduction
- Frédéric Lombard, Arbitrage et droit administratif, une incompatibilité de principe ?
- Malik Laazouzi, Le contentieux étatique et arbitral des contrats administratifs internationaux : quelles interactions ?
- Mathias Audit, L’arbitrabilité des litiges impliquant une personne publique française dans le nouveau contexte des affaires INSERM et Ryanair (SMAC)
- Olivier Le Bot, La procédure devant le juge administratif en matière d’arbitrage : quel contrôle ? quelle procédure ?
- Laurent Jaeger, Les conséquences de la jurisprudence INSERM/SMAC sur la pratique de l’arbitrage
- Jean Paul Correa Delcasso, Arbitrage et droit administratif en Espagne et en Amérique latine
- William Peterson, Arbitrage et droit administratif : l’expérience des États-Unis
- Denis Mouralis, Rapport de synthèse
- Rusty Park, Michael Mustill: a reminiscence
- L. Yves Fortier, Arbitrators, corruption, and the poetic experience: ‘When power corrupts, poetry cleanses’
- Albert Jan van den Berg, Charles Brower’s problem with 100 per cent—dissenting opinions by party-appointed arbitrators in investment arbitration
- Sam Luttrell, ICSID provisional measures ‘in the round’
- Lucy Greenwood & C. Mark Baker, Is the balance getting better? An update on the issue of gender diversity in international arbitration
- Ridhi Kabra, Has Abaclat v Argentina left the ICSID with a ‘mass’ive problem?
- Jingzhou Tao & Mariana Zhong, A quick read of the CIETAC arbitration rules 2015
- Mark R. Joelson, Arbitration in the United States under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
- Ioannis Avgoustis, A short note on the Piraeus Maritime Arbitration Rules
- Manuel Gómez Carrión, Joinder of third parties: new institutional developments
- Rizwan Hussain, Taisei Corporation v A.M. Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.—Decision of the Lahore High Court in light of the New York Convention