Human rights and democratisation are live, active discourses that engage highly passionate responses. By challenging ourselves and others to critique and re-imagine the promotion and protection of human rights and democratisation, our conversations are made all the more interesting and the shared learning enriched.
Rights! aims to be an independent, accessible and egalitarian platform where different views, ideas, approaches, interests and practices meet. It gathers together think pieces, comments from the field, case studies, interviews, critiques and provocations from established and emerging human rights professionals from all regions of the world. The objectives of the platform are to:
- showcase quality pieces by academics, practitioners, (inter)governmental officials, graduates and students alike
- speak on a variety of human rights and democratisation issues to a larger audience than the ‘converted’
- offer information and orientation about events, activities, publications and people
- enable cross-learning among different constituencies
- inspire prompt reactions, debates and further cooperation
Saturday, October 3, 2015
- Kok-Chor Tan, Humanitarian Intervention as a Duty
- David Jason Karp, The Responsibility to Protect Human Rights and the RtoP: Prospective and Retrospective Responsibility
- Heather M. Roff, Covert Actions and the Responsibility to Protect
- James Pattison, Mapping the Responsibilities to Protect: A Typology of International Duties
- Aidan Hehir, The Dog That Didn’t Bark? A Response to Dunne and Gelber’s Analysis of RtoP’s Influence on the Intervention in Libya
- Tim Dunne & Katharine Gelber, Text and Context in the Responsibility to Protect: A Reply to Hehir
Friday, October 2, 2015
- Sondre Torp Helmersen, The Classification of Groups Belonging to a Party to an International Armed Conflict
- Karine Mac Allister, The Legal Consequences of Faits Accomplis
- Karen da Costa & Paulina Pospieszna, The Relationship between Human Rights and Disaster Risk Reduction Revisited: Bringing the Legal Perspective into the Discussion
- Cherine Foty, The Dangers of the Dissemination of Misinformation in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect
- Christian Ponti, The Crime of Indiscriminate Attack and Unlawful Conventional Weapons: The Legacy of the ICTY Jurisprudence
- Mohamad Ghazi Janaby, The Legality of the Use of Private Military and Security Companies in un Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Operations
Since the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations, genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes—mass atrocities—have been explicitly illegal. When such crimes are committed, the international community has an obligation to respond: the human rights of the victims outweigh the sovereignty claims of states that engage in or allow such human rights violations. This obligation has come to be known as the responsibility to protect. Yet, parallel to this responsibility, two other related responsibilities have developed: to prosecute those responsible for the crimes, and to provide humanitarian relief to the victims—what the author calls the responsibility to palliate. Even though this rhetoric of protecting those in need is well used by the international community, its application in practice has been erratic at best.
In International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa, Kurt Mills develops a typology of responses to mass atrocities, investigates the limitations of these responses, and calls for such responses to be implemented in a more timely and thoughtful manner. Mills considers four cases of international responses to mass atrocities—in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and Darfur—putting the cases into historical context and analyzing them according to the typology, showing how the responses interact. Although all are intended to address human suffering, they are very different types of actions and accomplish different things, over different timescales, on different orders of magnitude, and by very different types of actors. But the critical question is whether they accomplish their objectives in a mutually supportive way—and what the trade-offs in using one or more of these responses may be. By expanding the understanding of international responsibilities, Mills provides critical analysis of the possibilities for the international community to respond to humanitarian crises.
“International Humanitarian Law and Modern Warfare”
Rome, 23-24 October 2015
The relationship between warfare and international humanitarian law is an ever-evolving one. New combat methods, novel technologies and the evolution of weaponry pose critical challenges to international humanitarian law; at the same time, the high task of protecting the principles of humanity during wars requires an evolution and an adaptation of the law. International humanitarian law is “law in motion”.
Carabinieri are involved in a number of international missions and operations, so we have decided to organize this conference, because we consider it as an important objective to contribute to fostering the study and understanding of such important issues, in the interest of members of the military and society at large.
The conference in Rome will last two days and the debate will spread across four panels: one will deal with new weaponry and the law; one will focus on the relationship between human rights and humanitarian law in the context of modern warfare; another will cover recent judicial developments in international humanitarian law and the last one will address the evolving relationship between the general principles of international humanitarian law and the features of modern warfare. Each panel will be composed of four/five experts, and it will be moderated by a young scholar in the field.
The work of global governance – including the governance of illicit activities – increasingly entails some pairing of list and algorithm. Across sectors as diverse as environmental conservation, migration, nuclear non-proliferation, humanitarian aid, counter-terrorism and more, the list-plus-algorithm is, it seems, displacing rival juridical forms on the global scale. This article probes some implications of the proliferation of this conjunctive form of ‘law’. Beginning with a typology of some types of governance work that the list-plus-algorithm is called to do on the global plane, this article tracks movements of knowledge from the arcane form of the list into an algorithmic mode, and back again. It considers, too, some difficulties with which these configurations of lawful authority may be associated and the repertoire of techniques that international lawyers typically use to address these. Among these, the endless championing of transparency will be the focus of particular critique. Precisely as the prospect of seeing definitively through these governance devices seems, for a range of reasons, almost impossible to achieve, preoccupations with transparency have intensified. But what else might making the governance work of these list-plus-algorithm configurations ‘public’ entail? This article takes up this question by focusing attention on how lists-plus-algorithms bring peoples, places and things into lawful relation.
The conference will bring together scholars of international criminal law, criminologists and practitioners in an attempt to define the parameters of the nascent field of inquiry – the criminology of mass atrocities. International criminal law was born out of political consensus reached in the aftermath of the Second World War. The idea to set up international tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo was highly controversial due to the existing legal vacuum at that time. The horrendous nature of crimes and the sentiment that something needs to be done about the perpetrators served as a push for the development of the discipline. The law eventually caught up with politics - the 1990’s saw the proliferation of international and hybrid tribunals, while the 2000’s witnessed the creation of a permanent international criminal law institution – the International Criminal Court. The jurisprudence emanating from these courts significantly expanded the body of international law.
What is still missing from the picture is the study of international criminality. Criminology, which occupies itself with causes of offending and societal responses to it, is not on the agenda of actors responsible for advancing international justice. Paradoxically, while domestic policy makers benefit from science when they craft responses to different types of crimes, advocates of international criminal law are working in the absence of reliable facts and theories. The conference will lay down foundations for the future development of the discipline. In particular, it will explore the points of intersection between established criminological theories and international offending. The aim is to create bridges where they can be created and identify gaps to be further explored by international criminologists.
Panel 1 explores definitional aspects of international crimes. Based on which criteria do we select crimes that fall within the scope of international criminology? How do we define this new discipline? What is the capacity of international criminal law to deal with mass criminality? Panel 2 focuses on causes of international offending. Which theories may assist in explaining the type of criminality at hand? Does the context of mass atrocities distorts the idea of deviance, equating it, at times, with wrongful obedience? Panel 3 connects theoretical underpinnings of criminology with the practical issues faced by international criminal justice practitioners and scholars. What is the added value of developing international criminology? To what extent do we need to account for cultural and regional diversity in developing criminology of international criminal law?
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Cyber-Angriffe sind ein Kind des Informationszeitalters, ein Resultat enormer Abhängigkeiten und globaler Vernetzung, eine Konsequenz zunehmender finanzieller sowie technologischer Kluftenbildung zwischen den Staaten und eine Folge freier Verfügbarkeit. Kurzum: die Angriffsform der heutigen Zeit. Zentrales Problem aus Sicht der Opfer, seien es Staaten, Unternehmen oder anderweitige Akteure, ist die sich in der Regel erfolglos gestaltende Rückverfolgung dieser Angriffe. Sven-Hendrik Schulze untersucht, ob und gegebenenfalls wie das traditionelle Konzept der Staatenverantwortlichkeit in diesen Situationen des Nicht-Wissens Anwendung findet. Sollten diese althergebrachten Regeln an ihre Grenzen stoßen, so zeigt er auf, welche alternativen Maßnahmen in Zukunft auf internationaler, regionaler und nationaler Ebene durch die Staaten getroffen werden sollten.
Rosentreter: Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Principle of Systemic Integration in International Investment Law and Arbitration
Das Werk zeigt Wissenschaftlern und Praktikern am Beispiel der Diskriminierungsverbote, dem Verbot der rechtswidrigen Enteignung und dem Gebot der fairen und gerechten Behandlung Möglichkeiten auf, wie die wohl wichtigste Problematik des internationalen Investitionsschutzrechtes, der faire Interessenausgleich zwischen Investitionsschutzrechten und dem Regulierungsbedürfnis des Gaststaates, im Wege der harmonischen Vertragsinterpretation auf Grundlage des Artikel 31(3)(c) WVK und dem sogenannten „Prinzip der systematischer Integration“ gelingen kann bzw. wo dieser Ansatz seine Grenzen hat. Dazu wird zunächst die Relevanz „systemfremder“ Normen im Investitionsschutzrecht erläutert herausgearbeitet. Nach einer detaillierten Darstellung der oben genannten Interpretationsmethoden, werden vor allem die Ansätze in der Rechtsprechung auf Grundlage der verschiedensten Vertragsregime und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeiten analysiert.
- Part One
- Michael V. Gestrin, Trends in international investment and the activities of multinational enterprises: 2013-2014
- Lise Johnson & Lisa Sachs, International Investment Agreements, 2013: A Review of Trends and New Approaches
- Ian A. Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric G. Sourgens, Nicholas J. Birch, & Kabir Duggal, International Investment Law and Arbitration: 2013 in Review
- Part Two
- N. Jansen Calamita, Introduction
- N. Jansen Calamita, The Principle of Proportionality and the Problem of Indeterminacy in International Investment Treaties
- Valentina Vadi, Proportionality, Reasonableness and Standards of Review in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- Claudia Annacker, The Role of Investors' Legitimate Expectations in Defense of Investment Treaty Claims
- Part Three: General Articles
- Jürgen Kurtz, Balancing investor protection and regulatory freedom in international investment law: The necessary, complex and vital search for state purpose
- Jure Zrilic, Jurisprudential interaction between ICSID tribunals and the International Court of Justice
- Valentina Vadi, The Migration of Constitutional Ideas: The Strange Case of Proportionality in International Investment Law and Arbitration
- Céline Lévesque, Inconsistency in Investor-State Awards and the Role of State Interpretations: the Example of the Mexican Sweetener Trio of Cases under NAFTA
- Lars Markert & Catharine Titi, States Strike Back - Old and New Ways for Host States to Defend against Investment Arbitrations
- Preeti Bhagnani, Revisiting the Countermeasures Defense in Investor-State Disputes: Approach and Analogies
- Alberto Alvarez-Jimenez, The Political Economy of Crises and the International Law of Necessity after the Great Recession
- Maninder Malli, Minilateral Treaty-Making in International Investment Law
- Jason Yackee, A BIT of Promotion: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Promotion Agencies
- Lindsey Marchessault & Michael Jarvis, The Trend toward Open Contracting: Applicability and Implications for International Investment Agreements
- Martin Delaroche, New Regulations on Foreign Acquisitions of Land in Brazil and Argentina
Shany: Stronger Together? Legitimacy and Effectiveness of International Courts as Mutually Reinforcing or Undermining Notions
Legitimacy and effectiveness are two key conceptual frameworks for evaluating social institutions, including judicial institutions. At the international level, attaining either judicial legitimacy or judicial effectiveness is particularly challenging: international institutions typically lack both the kind of democratic legitimation possessed by domestic institutions in liberal democracies, and the strong law-enforcement facilities available at the domestic level in ‘rule of law’ states. Given these structural deficiencies, international courts may need to resort to supplementary legitimacy-enhancing and effectiveness-bolstering factors in order to perform their functions in a satisfactory manner and to realize the expectations attendant to their operations. Arguably, such legitimacy-enhancing and effectiveness-bolstering factors tend to operate in a mutually-reinforcing manner: a more legitimate international court may function more effectively, and a more effective international court may be deemed more legitimate. Still, at times, legitimacy-detracting and effectiveness-decreasing factors may operate in a mutually-undermining manner, judicial illegitimacy producing judicial ineffectiveness and vice versa. This Chapter examines the relationship between judicial legitimacy and judicial effectiveness, as applied to international courts, and explores, in particular, their mutually reinforcing or mutually undermining attributes.
Report of the Expert Meeting on the ILC's Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disaster
In 2007 the International Law Commission decided to include the topic “The protection of persons in the event of disasters” in its programme of work and appointed Eduardo Valencia-Ospina as Special Rapporteur. From the sixtieth (2008) to sixty-sixth sessions (2014), the Commission considered seven reports presented by the Special Rapporteur, as well as a comprehensive Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat of the ILC in December 2007 (A/CN.4/590). In 2014 the ILC adopted on first reading a set of 21 draft articles and commentaries on the protection of persons in the event of disasters (A/69/10, Chapter V). In accordance with its established practice, the Commission decided to transmit the Draft Articles to Governments, IOs, the ICRC and the IFRC for comments and observations, to be taken into account during the second reading.
In view of the relevance of this topic and to stimulate further analysis on the future activities in this area, the Department of Law, Roma Tre University, as part of the activities of the “International Disaster Law Project”, decided to host a selected group of experts from international organizations, academia, governments and civil society for a two-day frank and engaging discussion on the ILC’s Draft Articles, as adopted on first reading. The underlying idea was to facilitate an open discussion with relevant stakeholders and external experts at a critical moment for the Project, in anticipation of the second reading. The participation of high-level representatives of the main humanitarian organizations involved in the area as well as of renowned scholars emphasises the relevance of this Project outside the realm of the Commission.
This report summarizes the presentations made by the participants and the ensuing in-depth and vibrant discussions of the different issues addressed by the Draft Articles. A final session was devoted to the way forward for the Project and potential missing issues in the current text and Commentary. The meeting was held under “Chatham House rules”, and, accordingly, the report does not attribute any comment to participants or organizations.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
This talk builds on Professor Lindseth’s chapter, ‘Supranational Organizations’, forthcoming in the ‘Oxford Handbook of International Organizations’ (Cogan, Hurd, & Johnstone eds.), as well as his monograph ‘Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State’ (OUP 2010). Professor Lindseth argues that supranational organisations (SNOs) – most importantly the EU – are best understood, in legal-historical terms, as an extension of administrative governance on the national level. Although exercising extensive normative power across a whole range of regulatory domains, SNOs are unable to mobilize significant resources in their own right, whether fiscal (taxing, spending, and borrowing) or human (policing, defence, i.e., coercion whether internal or external). The EU, qua SNO, ultimately depends on democratic and constitutional legitimacy derived from, and mediated through, the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies of the member states. This ‘separation of power and legitimacy’ is the key indicator of the EU’s ultimately ‘administrative’ character, and it has profound implications for its capacity to act in an autonomous manner. The theoretical perspective animating Professor Lindseth’s work is born of a particular historical understanding of the evolution of public law and institutions in the North Atlantic world over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This talk will explore that understanding, while also noting some of its potential consequences, particularly with regard to some of the crises (the Eurozone, refugees) currently facing the EU.
- Brendan Howe, Boris Kondoch & Otto Spijkers, Normative and Legal Challenges to UN Peacekeeping Operations
- Vesselin Popovski, De-Mythologizing Peacekeeping
- James Sloan, Militarised Peacekeeping in Darfur
- Otto Spijkers, The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping in the Congo
- Stephan Hollenberg, Immunity of the UN in the Case of Haitian Cholera Victims
- Athena M. Nguyen, Sexual Exploitation and Abuse on Peacekeeping Operations
- Friederycke Haijer & Cedric Ryngaert, Reflections on Jaloud v. the Netherlands
- Scott Jasper & Scott Moreland, A Comprehensive Approach to Multidimensional Operations
- Veijo Heiskanen, Key to Efficiency in International Arbitration
- Case Comments
- Charles T. Kotuby, Jr & James A. Egerton-Vernon, Apotex Holdings Inc and Apotex Inc v The Government of the United States of America: The Adoption by International Tribunals of a Substantive/Transactional Approach to Res Judicata—A New Paradigm in International Dispute Resolution?
- John Fellas & Pavlos Petrovas, Diag Human SE v Czech Republic-Ministry of Health: A Restrictive Application of the ‘Commercial’ Requirement in New York Convention Cases under US Law
- Michael Hwang & Aloysius Chang, Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v Sanum Investments Ltd: A Tale of Two Letters
- Andrew Newcombe & Jean-Michel Marcoux, Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia: Imposing International Obligations on Foreign Investors
- Matthew Weiniger & Elizabeth Kantor KT Asia Investment Group BV v Republic of Kazakhstan: Ratione Personae and Ratione Materiae
- Todd Weiler, St Mary’s VCNA, LLC v The Government of Canada: An Alleged Abuse of Rights is Revealed in Inadvertently Disclosed Documents, and Now Solicitor–Client Privilege has been Claimed: What is a NAFTA Tribunal to Do?
- Francesco Montanaro, Poštova Banka SA and Istrokapital SE v Hellenic Republic: Sovereign Bonds and the Puzzling Definition of ‘Investment’ in International Investment Law
- Belen Olmos Giupponi, ICSID Tribunals and Sovereign Debt Restructuring-Related Litigation: Mapping the Further Implications of the Alemanni Decision
- Aniruddha Rajput, Problems with the Jurisprudence of the Iran–US Claims Tribunal on Indirect Expropriation
- W. Michael Reisman, Canute Confronts the Tide: States versus Tribunals and the Evolution of the Minimum Standard in Customary International Law
- Michelle Bradfield & J.C. Thomas, Non-Pecuniary Remedies: A Missed Opportunity?
- Tim Wood, Political Risk or Political Right? Reconciling the International Legal Norms of Investment Protection and Political Participation
- José Alberro, Estimating Damages Using DCF: From Free Cash Flow to the Firm to Free Cash Flow to Equity (and Back)
- Jean-Christophe Honlet, Recent decisions on third-party funding in investment arbitration
- Matthew Coleman & Thomas Innes, Provisional Measures During Suspension of ICSID Proceedings
- Grant Hanessian & Kabir Duggal, The 2015 Indian Model BIT: Is This Change the World Wishes to See?
- Michael Polkinghorne & Charles B. Rosenberg, The Adverse Inference in ICSID Practice
The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary is the first complete article-by-article commentary on the ECHR and its Protocols in English. This book provides an entry point for every part of the Convention: the substance of the rights, the workings of the Court, and the enforcement of its judgments. A separate chapter is devoted to each distinct provision or article of the Convention as well as to Protocols 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 16, which have not been incorporated in the Convention itself and remain applicable to present law.
Each chapter contains: a short introduction placing the provision within the context of international human rights law more generally; a review of the drafting history or preparatory work of the provision; a discussion of the interpretation of the text and the legal issues, with references to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission on Human Rights; and a selective bibliography on the provision.
- Special Editorial
- Miguel de Serpa Soares, An Age of Accountability
- Lars Berster, The Alleged Non-Existence of Cultural Genocide: A Response to the Croatia v. Serbia Judgment
- Sumer Dayal, Prosecuting Force-feeding: An Assessment of Criminality under the ICC Statute
- Symposium: After Justice Has Been Done: The Benefit of Hindsight
- Chrisje Brants & Susanne Karstedt, Foreword
- Susanne Karstedt, Managing Criminal Reputations: West German Elites after the Nuremberg Trials, 1946–1960
- Sandra Wilson, The Sentence is Only Half the Story: From Stern Justice to Clemency for Japanese War Criminals, 1945–1958
- Chrisje Brants, Complicated Legacies of Justice: The Netherlands and World War II
- Willem de Haan, Knowing What We Know Now: International Crimes in Historical Perspective
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Carsten Stahn, Reparative Justice after the Lubanga Appeal Judgment: New Prospects for Expressivism and Participatory Justice or ‘Juridified Victimhood’ by Other Means?
- Sarah Williams, The Severance of Case 002 at the ECCC: A Radical Trial Management Technique or a Step Too Far?
- Giulia Vicini, Conscientious Objection to Military Service and the Notion of Persecution in European Union Asylum Law: The Shepherd Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union
- National Prosecution of International Crimes: Legislation and Cases
- Manuel J. Ventura, The Duty to Investigate Zimbabwe Crimes Against Humanity (Torture) Allegations: The Constitutional Court of South Africa Speaks on Universal Jurisdiction and the ICC Act
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
- Daniel Behn & Ole Kristian Fauchald, Governments under Cross-fire? Renewable Energy and International Economic Tribunals
- David Collins, Towards a Grand Unified Theory of International Economic Law
- Bryane Michael, Indira Carr & Donald Bowser, Reducing Corruption in Public Administration through Evidence-Based Law: Using Data to Design and Implement Ethics-Related Administrative Law
- Xiaojing Qin, A Political Study on Foreign Ownership of Land: Theoretical Challenges and Justifications
- Sungjin Kang, Competition Related Provisions (CRPs) of Bilateral Trade Agreements, Bilateral Competition Cooperation Agreements of Korea, and their Implications
It has become a widespread concern in recent years that there exist frictions between international investment law and arbitration and democratic governance. In particular, investor-state tribunals can issue awards that may reverse, de iure or de facto, decisions by democratically legitimated and democratically accountable domestic decision-makers that are deemed pivotal, by those decision-makers, for the pursuit of the public interest of their constituency. The pressure on domestic and regional decision-makers to find responses to such frictions, through treaty-drafting or otherwise, has increased considerably in recent years and arguably has led to a shift in the official policy of traditional proponents of the established system of international investment law and arbitration. This paper explores the potential and the pitfalls of democracy as an argumentative topos informing our view on investment arbitration and the interpretation of International Investment Agreements (IIAs), with a specific focus on the allocation of interpretive authority among the Contracting Parties, the investor-state and the state-state tribunals.
- Julian Arato, Corporations as Lawmakers
- Maggie Gardner, Channeling Unilateralism
- Anthea Roberts, Triangular Treaties: The Extent and Limits of Investment Treaty Rights
- Galit Sarfaty, Shining Light on Global Supply Chains
The paper starts from the observation that attempts to formalize negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) have consistently spawned new forms of informality, such as the holding of meetings as “chairperson’s consultations” which do not require the adoption of an agenda, or the emergence of new types of “unofficial” documents. The paper sketches the resulting layers of formality/informality and attempts to account for the survival of informality in the WTO. The most commonly offered explanation for the persistence of informality in WTO negotiations is that informality simply serves to facilitate and disguise the exercise of power. The paper argues instead that formal and informal meetings serve essentially different functions. Gradations of formality/informality need to be taken seriously not only as offering different avenues for WTO members to talk to each other and to their domestic and international audiences. Informality can also provide opportunities for productive interventions, alliances, and performances that are precluded in more formal settings.
The Indian Journal of International Law calls for papers on the theme Indian Courts and International Law for volume 56(1) to be published in April 2016. Some illustrative topics are mentioned below:
It may be noted that the submitted papers will go through a double blind peer review process.
- Constitution of India and International Law
- Indian Courts and International Human Rights Law
- Indian Courts and Law of the Sea
- Indian Courts and International Environmental Law
- Indian Courts and International Trade Law
Submissions should be made latest by: 15 December, 2015
Submission site: http://www.editorialmanager.com/ijil
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org | email@example.com
Barcelona Workshop on Global Governance. Adaptation and Change in Global Governance
4 & 5 February 2016 – IBEI & ESADEgeo, Barcelona
Call for Papers
The world is changing, but its institutions do not always change in the same way and at the same speed. Global governance institutions adapt and change in response to both internal and external stimuli, and they often also provoke changes in norms, structures and other actors. Much of the infrastructure of global governance—including intergovernmental organizations, international normative frameworks, and privately-created bodies—was created in the aftermath of World War II. In many cases, the mandates of intergovernmental organizations and private bodies have since expanded beyond recognition, budgets and staff numbers have multiplied, and legal frameworks have been extended and revised. In short, the world looks very different now from 70 years ago, and so too do the institutions of global governance. Still, many observers decry a reluctance to change, even a gridlock. Against this background, the 2016 Barcelona Workshop on Global Governance asks how the institutions of global governance change – how they initiate and manage internal reforms, adapt in response to external stimuli, and provoke change in other institutions – and what limitations this change faces. Key questions include:
- How do institutions adapt in response to external changes? Are some kinds of institution more adaptable than others? What determines their level of adaptability?
- What are the main drivers of internal change in international organizations? How is such change resisted, accepted, and managed?
- What role does individual leadership play in guiding change in global governance institutions?
- How do global governance institutions provoke change in international norms, structures, and other actors?
The Barcelona Workshop on Global Governance is a venue for the study of global governance – its structure, effects, and problems – from an interdisciplinary perspective, bringing together scholars from international relations, law, sociology, anthropology, political theory, public administration and history. Its 4th edition will be held on 4 & 5 February 2016 in Barcelona.
Confirmed keynote speakers include Pascal Lamy (former Director-General of the World Trade Organization) and David Held (Professor of Politics and International Relations, Durham University).
The workshop is organized by ESADEgeo (ESADE Business School’s Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics) and IBEI (Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals).
We invite abstract proposals from interested scholars from all disciplines. Proposals should not exceed 500 words in length. Preferred format for all submissions is PDF. Please send your proposals an attachment to firstname.lastname@example.org and insert “Submission: Barcelona Workshop on Global Governance” as the subject line of the message. The deadline for abstracts is 21 October 2015. All proposals will undergo peer review and notifications of acceptance will be sent out by 16 November 2015. Full papers are expected to be delivered by 27 January 2016 for circulation among participants.
Send submissions: email@example.com with Subject: “Submission: Barcelona Workshop on Global Governance”
Deadlines: 21 October 2015
Notifications of acceptance: 16 November 2015
- Miriam Bradley, IBEI
- Nico Krisch, IBEI & Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
- Angel Saz-Carranza, ESADEgeo
Monday, September 28, 2015
- Jack Donnelly, The discourse of anarchy in IR
- Stephen E. Gent, Mark J. C. Crescenzi, Elizabeth J. Menninga & Lindsay Reid, The reputation trap of NGO accountability
- Christopher McIntosh, Theory across time: the privileging of time-less theory in international relations
- Craig Parsons, Before eclecticism: competing alternatives in constructivist research
- Gwilym David Blunt, Is global poverty a crime against humanity?
- Mark Raymond & Laura DeNardis, Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution
In 1945, the U.N. Charter famously set out “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Having in mind traditional interstate wars, the Charter’s Article 2(4) outlawed, for the first time, interstate uses of force. However, nowadays, international wars are relatively rare, while civil wars are both more numerous and increasingly destructive. Still, international law has yet to develop a regime regulating the resort to war (jus ad bellum) within a state, either by governments or opposition groups. Contemporary jus ad bellum, thus, fails to address one of the most atrocious forms of war in the modern international system.
This Article puts forward a novel theory of internal jus ad bellum, equally applicable to governments as well as opposition groups. It demonstrates that the current blind-spot in international law concerning this issue is incoherent and unwarranted. By applying the revisionist approach to just war theory, this Article argues that internal resort to armed force can only be morally acceptable if undertaken in self (or other) defense against grave threats.
Applying this notion to the international-legal sphere, this Article claims that collectivist doctrines such self-determination, sovereignty or democratic entitlement are not appropriate venues for an acceptable standard of internal jus ad bellum. It proceeds to locate such a possible standard in international human rights law (IHRL), which enshrines everyone’s right to life. However, as the Article demonstrates, IHRL, as currently understood, fails to serve as an effective framework for internal jus ad bellum, since it collapses, during armed conflict, into international humanitarian law (IHL). The Article concludes by suggesting an understanding of IHRL that can overcome these limitations and thus serve as a working doctrine of internal jus ad bellum.
Ziegler: Autonomy: From Myth to Reality – Or Hubris on a Tightrope? EU Law, Human Rights and International Law
This chapter considers the complex relationship between EU law and international law, analysing an increasing trend of closure of the former to the latter in the jurisprudence of the CJEU. It shows that international human rights law, at least since the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, is no exception to this trend. In inquiring into the reasons for this, the chapter critically examined the prominent focus on autonomy in Opinion 2/13. Relating the notion of autonomy to earlier case law reveals a much expanded, overarching concept, potentially on the verge of being considered to be a general principle by the CJEU. It is argued that such a wide notion of autonomy distorts the interpretation of the accession conditions in the Article 6(2) TEU, Protocol 8 to the Treaty of Lisbon and the Declaration on Article 6(2) TEU which should be interpreted narrowly in the light of the object and purpose and intention of the Member States when creating the obligation to accede. The paper sketches out an alternative to a restrictive approach to international law. The consequences of a restrictive approach would be that the EU legal order isolates itself from international influences and dynamics which would be particularly valuable for shaping and maintaining a modern system of human rights protection in the EU on which the pluralistic Solange II/Bosphorus settlement between the EU and its Member States depends. More generally, isolating itself from international law is not just potentially damaging to international law, but could in the long term undermine the legitimacy and very foundations of the EU.
Murphy: The Identification of Customary International Law and Other Topics: The Sixty-Seventh Session of the International Law Commission
The International Law Commission held its sixty-seventh session in Geneva from May 4 to June 5, and from July 6 to August 7, 2015, under the chairmanship of Narinder Singh (India). Notably, the Commission’s drafting committee completed a full set of sixteen draft conclusions on the topic of “identification of customary international law,” paving the way for those conclusions with commentaries to be approved by the Commission on first reading in 2016.
Additionally, the Commission provisionally adopted with commentaries initial draft guidelines on “protection of the atmosphere” and initial draft articles on “crimes against humanity,” as well as one further draft conclusion with commentary on “subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties.” Progress was also made in developing draft principles on “protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts,” draft articles on “immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction,” and draft guidelines on “provisional application of treaties.” The Commission completed its work on the topic “the most-favored-nation clause” and decided to add a new topic of jus cogens to its agenda.
Yee: The South China Sea Arbitration: The Clinical Isolation And/Or One-Sided Tendencies in the Philippines’ Oral Arguments
This brief paper comments on the clinical isolation and one-sided tendencies in the Philippines’ oral arguments in the South China Sea arbitration, with illustrations from its arguments on (1) negotiation as the agreed exclusive choice for dispute settlement, (2) sovereignty matters, (3) optional exception of delimitation-related disputes; (4) optional exception of military activities disputes; and (5) environmental claims.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
The central ambition of human rights advocacy is to get people to care, who might otherwise not, about the suffering of others. To accomplish this, human rights advocates often appeal to moral intuitions by telling stories that evoke moral outrage, indignation, or guilt. Are these sorts of appeals a good way to promote human rights? The conventional wisdom suggests that they are. But perhaps the conventional wisdom is incomplete – perhaps human rights advocates should treat moral intuitions with skepticism rather than uncritical embrace. In this brief essay, I argue that appeals to moral intuitions are problematic because moral intuitions can lead people to make decisions that are suboptimal from the standpoint of the human rights regime’s goals. I attempt to show, in other words, that one of the great assets of the human rights regime – its ability to harness our strong intuitive reaction to the suffering of others – is also one of its great limitations. To make this argument, I draw from the mind sciences literature on moral decision-making. The latest research in this domain suggests that our moral intuitions are fallible. A number of studies have shown, for example, that moral outrage and indignation can cause people to make decisions that they would not defend under cooler conditions. I focus on three particular sorts of moral judgment biases and explore their implications for human rights advocacy. I then evaluate two different normative claims one might make about these moral judgment biases and offer several concluding thoughts.
Call for Papers: Trust, Social Capital and Networks: A different perspective on International Courts
Trust, Social Capital and Networks: A different perspective on Intertional Courts - Call for papers
Organised by iCourts, Centre of Excellence for International Courts.
The workshop, which will take place in February 2016 at iCourts, University of Copenhagen, aims to provide participants with the opportunity to think through and develop a new research agenda on social capital, networks and trust to be applied to understand International Courts and legal regimes.
While concepts of social capital, networks and trust are increasingly used in the study of International Courts and Law, the discipline still lacks a systematic analysis of the role, limits and uses of these concepts for the study of International Courts (ICs). The current discussions of trust, social capital and networks have evolved in separate spheres, circumscribed to a specific court or legal institution. This situation shows a fragmented conceptualization, preventing the creation of common conceptual frameworks, which could promote mutual understanding and exchanges among scholars in the field.
iCourts, committed to the promotion of the interdisciplinary perspective in the area of International Courts and Law, is inviting participants from several disciplines with an interest in International Courts to a high-level interdisciplinary discussion of the topic. This would allow for cross-fertilization, exchange of opinions and knowledge between the academics but also for the critical assessment of the new tools which the scholars use to scrutinize these concepts in the context of ICs. By doing this, the workshop will hopefully contribute to a wide-ranging discussion. This includes not only general theoretical approaches and concepts but also comparative and specific case studies based on original and innovative empirical evidence of how these concepts are or can be applied to several international courts and legal regimes (e.g. International Criminal Court, European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, WTO dispute settlement system, arbitration bodies, and national courts, among others).
In order to frame the debate and papers, we ask paper-givers to reflect about: To what extent are these concepts applicable for the study of ICs? Can we agree on a common definition of these terms? How can these concepts help to explore the dynamics behind the creation, empowerment and legitimization of ICs in the global and domestic context and its success? Which empirical indicators are useful to investigate trust, social capital and networks in ICs? And, finally, how these new theories and concepts might contribute or challenge our current understanding of international courts and/or scholarship?
The conference will include papers presented by invited participants, as well as papers selected in the course of the present call for papers. We will seek to publish a selection of the papers in a special journal issue or book.
The workshop will be open to new participants PhD researchers, junior and senior scholars from international institutions working on this topic with an empirical approach. The papers should deal with specific topics related to the overall theme “Trust, social capital and networks in International Courts”. The selection will seek to ensure a balanced representation of the various ICs across the glove, disciplines (sociology, law, political science, etc.) and methods. – The proposal (approx. 300 words) should be submitted by the 15th of October 2015 and include:
- Title of the paper
- Research question
- Methodology and data
- Expected findings
The proposals should be submitted with curriculum vitae of the author/s to Juan A. Mayoral – firstname.lastname@example.org
Authors of selected papers will be offered accommodation in a hotel in Copenhagen; lunches and coffee breaks will be covered for all the participants by iCourts.