- Marc Bossuyt, Tarakhel c. Suisse : La Cour de Strasbourg rend encore plus difficile une Politique commune européenne en matière d’asile
- Asier Garrido-Muñoz, La constitutionnalisation du ius in bello dans le droit de l’Union européenne : vers l’« humanitarisation » progressive de l’action extérieure
- Eleanor Cashin Ritaine, Le juge suisse confronté au droit etranger
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
International law operates today in a network of subject- and region-specific agreements and forums, with differing levels of efficacy and enforceability. Undoubtedly, specialized fields, such as the law of the sea, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, international trade law, and international investment law have developed into fully-functioning regimes. However, these self-contained regimes operate within the broader context of public international law. Amidst a proliferation of treaties, customary international law, and soft law norms, what are the applicable rules of international law? How can the rules be interpreted in a manner that ensures coherence within and between regimes? Some commentators maintain that specialization results in insulation and potential conflicts between regimes. Conversely, others argue that specialization leads to increased efficiency and protection of the rule of law.
What is the role of international courts and tribunals? Should they be the guardians of coherence and maintaining the rule of law in the face of the rapidly increasing number of treaties and cases? Is coherence of international norms across regimes necessary or to be desired? Within regimes, how much fragmentation or coherence is desired? Are international courts and tribunals different in this respect from domestic courts and tribunals? Contradictions abound in contemporary international law jurisprudence. On the one hand, the growing body of decisions in some regimes demonstrates consistency and coherence. Conversely, the lack of appellate review mechanisms and the non-binding nature of decisions in other regimes may lead to conflicts and chaos.
Is the complex, international legal system today becoming more coherent and cohesive or heading toward fragmentation and chaos? The 44th Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on International Law will examine these important issues and more.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
- Paulina Starski, Right to Self-Defense, Attribution and the Non-State Actor
- Fulvio Maria Palombino, Compliance with International Judgments: Between Supremacy of International Law and National Fundamental Principles
- Markus Frischhut, “EU”: Short for “Ethical” Union? The Role of Ethics in European Union Law
- Tomasz P. Milej, What Is Wrong about Supranational Laws? The Sources of East African Community Law In Light of the EU’s Experience
- Stellungnahmen und Berichte
- Martin Ney, Der 2+4-Prozess aus der Sicht des Rechtsberaters
- Shai Dothan, Luring NGOs to International Courts
- Melina Garcin, The Haitian Cholera Victims’ Complaints Against the United Nations
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.
As new networks of railways, steamships, and telegraph communications brought distant places into unprecedented proximity, previously minor discrepancies in local time-telling became a global problem. Vanessa Ogle’s chronicle of the struggle to standardize clock times and calendars from 1870 to 1950 highlights the many hurdles that proponents of uniformity faced in establishing international standards.
Time played a foundational role in nineteenth-century globalization. Growing interconnectedness prompted contemporaries to reflect on the annihilation of space and distance and to develop a global consciousness. Time—historical, evolutionary, religious, social, and legal—provided a basis for comparing the world’s nations and societies, and it established hierarchies that separated “advanced” from “backward” peoples in an age when such distinctions underwrote European imperialism.
Debates and disagreements on the varieties of time drew in a wide array of observers: German government officials, British social reformers, colonial administrators, Indian nationalists, Arab reformers, Muslim scholars, and League of Nations bureaucrats. Such exchanges often heightened national and regional disparities. The standardization of clock times therefore remained incomplete as late as the 1940s, and the sought-after unification of calendars never came to pass. The Global Transformation of Time reveals how globalization was less a relentlessly homogenizing force than a slow and uneven process of adoption and adaptation that often accentuated national differences.
- Terje Rød-Larsen, Foreword
- Sebastian von Einsiedel, David M. Malone, & Bruno Stagno Ugarte, Introduction
- P. Wallensteen & P. Johansson, The UN Security Council: Decisions and Actions
- S.J. Stedman, The US in the Security Council
- D. Bosco, Commentary: The Permanent One's Search for Maximum Flexibility
- Z. Wenqi & L. Xinyu, China in the Security Council
- D. Trenin, Russia in the Security Council
- T. Tardy & D. Zaum, France and the United Kingdom in the Security Council
- C. Keating, Power Dynamics Between Permanent and Elected Members
- K. Mahbubani, Council Reform and the Emerging Powers
- C. Wenaweser, Working Methods: The Ugly Duckling of Security Council Reform
- E.C. Luck, The Security Council at Seventy: Ever Changing or Never Changing?
- T.G. Weiss, Humanitarian Action and Intervention
- F. Mancini, Promoting Democracy
- J. Weschler, Acting on Human Rights
- P. Romaniuk, Responding to Terrorism
- J. Cockayne, Confronting Organized Crime and Piracy
- W.P.S. Sidhu, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Managing Proliferation
- A. Roberts, The Use of Force: A System of Selective Security
- J.-M. Guéhenno, Robust Peacekeeping and the Limits of Force
- H. Schaper, The Security Council and NATO
- S. Eckert, The Role of Sanctions
- S. Chesterman, Relations with the UN Secretary-General
- C. Peck, Special Representatives of the Secretary-General
- B. Stagno Ugarte, Collaborating with Regional Organizations
- T. Whitfield, Groups of Friends
- E. Sthoeger, International Courts and Tribunals
- M.E. Bouillon, The Arab-Israeli Conflict
- D.M. Malone & P. Chitalkar, Iraq
- M. Berdal, The Balkans
- J.L. Hirsch, Somalia
- H. Nitzschke, Sudan
- F. Vendrell, Afghanistan
- T. Carayannis, The DRC
- A. Boutellis & A. Novosseloff, Côte d’Ivoire
- A.J. Bellamy & P.D. Williams, Libya
- S. Shaikh & A. Roberts, Syria
- R. Dergham, Commentary: The Council's Failure on Syria
- R. Gowan, The Security Council and Peacekeeping
- I. Johnstone, The Security Council and International Law
- B. Jones, Impacts of the Changing Global Distribution of Power
- J. Greenstock, The Security Council in a Fragmenting World
- Sebastian von Einsiedel, David M. Malone, & Bruno Stagno Ugarte, The Security Council and a World in Crisis
Call for Papers: 5th Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of SIEL
5th Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law (PEPA/SIEL) 2016
Luxembourg, 14-15 April 2016
Organised by PEPA/SIEL in collaboration with the Research Unit in Law of the University of Luxembourg
SIEL’s Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network (PEPA/SIEL) is, among other things, interested in fostering collaboration and mentoring opportunities for emerging academics and professionals in International Economic Law (IEL). PEPA/SIEL fulfils these goals through various activities such as organising conferences at which emerging IEL academics and professionals can present and discuss their research in a supportive and welcoming environment.
We are pleased to announce that the fifth conference will take place on 14-15 April 2016 in Luxembourg.
Call for Papers
This conference offers graduate students (students enrolled in Master or PhD programmes) and early professionals/academics (generally within five years of graduating) studying or working in the field of IEL an opportunity to present and discuss their research. It also provides a critical platform where participants can test their ideas about broader issues relating to IEL. One or more senior practitioners and academics will comment on each paper after its presentation, followed by a general discussion.
We invite submissions on any IEL topic including, but not limited to:
- Law and practice in international economic governance and international organizations;
- International trade, investment, competition, monetary and financial law;
- The interaction of IEL branches with other branches of law governing intellectual property, human rights, environment, sustainable development, food safety;
- Bilateral and regional economic integration and the multilateral trading system;
- Comparative economic law, focusing on how IEL interacts with laws, institutions and actors at the domestic level;
- International economics, philosophy, sociology, politics.
How and when to submit
Submissions should include a CV and a research abstract (of no more than 400 words) and be sent no later than 16 November 2015 to email@example.com. Papers will be selected based on a double blind review conducted by a senior practitioner or academic and a conference organiser. Successful applicants will be notified by 15 December 2015, after which they are expected to submit a conference paper (no more than 4000 words) by 15 March 2016. Abstracts will be made available online via the SIEL website (www.sielnet.org).
General practical information about participating and attending the Conference
The deadline for registration is 15 February 2016. Registration has to be done online at the SIEL website. Registration costs 45 GBP for non-SIEL Members, and 35 GBP for SIEL Members. SIEL Membership details may be found at the SIEL website (student membership is 5 GBP). The registration fee covers conference materials and coffee breaks of both days.
Cancellation of participation must be made in writing to firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for cancellation is 25 March 2016. The registration fee minus an administrative fee of 10 GBP and any incurring bank fees will be refunded if the cancellation is done before or on the given date. Later cancellation will not be refunded.
A limited number of conference fee waivers is available for applicants facing financial hardship. Applicants for such a waiver are kindly invited to add a short letter of no more than 3 paragraphs to their conference application, stating the reason for their waiver request.
Please understand that we will not be able to provide any travel or other financial assistance to conference participants.
Subject to space availability, registration of participants not presenting a paper will be accepted. The regular fee will be applied. Please contact email@example.com.
Should you have any question regarding application or participation, please feel free to contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Conference Co-Chairs: Matthew Happold, Geraldo Vidigal, Freya Baetens and José Caiado
The four Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949, remain the fundamental basis of contemporary international humanitarian law. They protect the wounded and sick on the battlefield, those wounded, sick or shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians in time of war. However, since they were adopted warfare has changed considerably. In this groundbreaking commentary over sixty international law experts investigate the application of the Geneva Conventions and explain how they should be interpreted today. It places the Conventions in the light of the developing obligations imposed by international law on states, armed groups, and individuals, most notably through international human rights law and international criminal law.
The context in which the Conventions are to be applied and interpreted has changed considerably since they were first written. The borderline between international and non-international armed conflicts is not as clear-cut as was once thought, and is complicated further by the use of armed force mandated by the United Nations and the complex mixed and transnational nature of certain non-international armed conflicts. The influence of other developing branches of international law, such as human rights law and refugee law has been considerable. The development of international criminal law has breathed new life into multiple provisions of the Geneva Conventions. This commentary adopts a thematic approach to provide detailed analysis of each key issue dealt with by the Conventions, taking into account both judicial decisions and state practice. Cross-cutting chapters on issues such as transnational conflicts and the geographical scope of the Conventions also give readers a full understanding of the meaning of the Geneva Conventions in their contemporary context. Prepared under the auspices of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, this commentary on four of the most important treaties in international law is unmissable for anyone working in or studying situations of armed conflicts.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Recent challenges to public health regulation such as Indonesia’s challenge to the United States’ tobacco flavouring ban in the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’), and the WTO and investment treaty challenges to Australia’s plain tobacco packaging scheme, have raised common problems of evidence in the international trade and investment law regimes. Responding states are faced with high expectations in justifying their public health measures with empirical evidence connecting the measure with its purported health outcomes. This article compares approaches to evidence in international trade and investment law and seeks to derive lessons for policymakers in developing public health regulation with potential trade and investment treaty challenges in mind. The article reflects on the kinds of evidence needed to successfully defend such challenges and the appropriate approach to assessing such evidence in disputes in these two fora.
Until recently, the concept of the ‘rule of law' (ROL) was exclusively used in relation to the domestic legal order of the state. Over the last two decades, however, it has entered the vocabulary of international legal scholars and experts. This journey of ROL from the domestic to the international sphere has provoked fierce debates between practitioners of international law, notably because, far from being a mere doctrinal controversy, it gave rise to practices impinging on the exercise of power at the international level and enabling diverse international experts to interfere in internal affairs of target states. This article argues that, in a somewhat paradoxical way, these developments impair the concept of ROL rather than expanding it into new domains. Indeed, while the established concept of ROL to a certain extent presupposed the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, current reformulations of ROL weaken them while making new interventionist practices easier. Analysis of the legal rationalizations used in the context of contemporary EU and UN crisis management operations makes this clear. Drawing on insights gained from legal theory and international political sociology, this article highlights how the concept of ROL cannot simply be transposed into the ‘international' realm without hampering its internal coherence.
We have spilled much ink, we as a community, in our discussion of international arbitration. Much of it we have used on specific technical aspects of the laws and rules that apply to it, or that apply in it. A great deal too has gone to how good procedures are to be conducted. And increasingly, of late, we have written on how arbitration works beyond the rules – the rules which reflect some (but only some) of its true operations. We have taken interest in its broader social and economic significance. We are, now and then, zooming out from the bolts and screws and consider it at the level of an entire system. Engagements with problems that truly vex – truly vex beyond offering legal conundrums or presenting complicated logistical puzzles – no longer stand out today as so many sore thumbs. Or much less so.
Why? And where is it going? Why and how is international arbitration scholarship evolving? What are, to start with, its forms today? And why did we scholars make it what it is? Surely there is something – or rather many somethings – that determine what we write. What could they be?
The chapter moves in four parts. I begin with an overview of different forms of arbitration scholarship, what they seek to achieve and how, what from of thinking they correspond to and how they progress, all of this in quite general terms. This part ends with an impressionist account of the evolution of arbitration scholarship over the last 30 years.
With Part II, I turn to what incentivises and constrains scholarship in the field. I first enter a general approach, which draws heavily on the concept of reasons-for-action, which I combine with basic law & economics tenets. I further introduce a classic distinction between two types of such reasons-for-action.
In Part III, I apply this general approach to identify ways in which the pursuit of other people’s interests may determine what kind of arbitration scholarship we produce. In Part IV, the focus shifts, within the same approach, to the advancement of our own interests when we write on arbitration.
JUS GENTIUM Journal of International Legal History is the first dedicated journal in the United States to address the history of international law. Much of modern scholarship on the history of international law is preoccupied not with international law, but with international legal doctrine; the doctrinal writings of remarkably few individuals dominate the discourse while the rest remain unseen or overlooked. This journal will encourage further exploration in the archives, for new materials and confirmation of the accuracy of past uses, but welcoming the continued reassessment of international legal history in all of its dimensions.
JUS GENTIUM is a biannual interdisciplinary journal commencing January 2016. The journal welcomes, in addition to the classical learned article, biographical or historiographical materials on international lawyers, newly-discovered, newly-identified, or newly-translated primary and secondary sources of State practice or doctrinal gloss, analytical reviews of old or new literature, fragments of diplomatic or military history that inform the presence or absence of opinio juris, memoirs or recollections of international legal practitioners in the broadest sense of the word, inquiries into the lexicon of international law, materials that illuminate non-European contributions to the law of nations or that document the migration of international legal concepts from one part of the globe to another. The contributions of the auxiliary historical sciences (numismatics, bookplates, philately, archaeology, etc.) are as welcome as are those of our sister social sciences. Bibliographical essays and review articles are welcome, as are appropriate guides to other international legal materials that will benefit historians of international law. To the extent we are able to do so, we will notice publications in some of the lesser known languages and invite authors or publishers to bring these to our attention.
We are currently accepting submissions for papers, essays and book reviews. Submissions may be made by hard copy submitted through a courier or postal service or by e-mail attachment (email@example.com) in Microsoft Word. These are subject to peer review; responses of acceptance or otherwise will be made as promptly as possible. Interested authors may see our website for instructions on submissions.
- Patricia L. Farnese, Will Nonhuman Rights Decrease Human Vulnerability to Zoonotic Diseases?
- Tata Emmanuel Sunjo, Double Decades of Existence of the Kilum-Ijim Community Forest in Cameroon: What Conservation Lessons?
- Sherryn Ciavaglia, Hannah Dridan, K. Paul Kirkbride & Adrian Linacre, Current Issues with the Investigation of Wildlife Crime in Australia: Problems and Opportunities for Improvement
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Hindelang & Sassenrath: The Investment Chapters of the EU’s International Trade and Investment Agreements in a Comparative Perspective
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in international investment agreements have traditionally been based on an approach which may be termed ‘light touch regulation’ of investment protection. The avenue taken by the recently negotiated EU draft agreements, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), can be described as ‘more comprehensive regulation’. Likewise, EUSFTA and CETA provide a rather detailed body of law on substantive standards for the protection of foreign investment. While this may add to the clarity and predictability of the current regime of international investment law, it may also lead to a reduced standard of protection. Compared with other agreements, EUSFTA and CETA have attempted to rebalance the protection of private property and the host state’s regulatory autonomy. In terms of the regulation of ISDS proceedings, EUSFTA and CETA preserve its principle characteristics but deliver moderate change in five areas: (1) consultation mechanisms, (2) the relationship between ISDS and domestic remedies, (3) the appointment and conduct of arbitrators, (4) cost allocation, and (5) transparency rules. This study proposes (1) further development regarding the coordination between effective domestic legal systems and ISDS and (2) the start of negotiations for the establishment of a permanent appeals mechanism in a regional or bilateral context.
Barnidge: The Evolution of Palestinian Arab Proto-Self-Determination and "Peoplehood" During the Mandate for Palestine
This paper traces the evolution of Palestinian Arab proto-self-determination and “peoplehood” during the Mandate for Palestine. In doing so, it seeks to clarify what are two of the most controversial and emotive concepts in international legal discourse and popular imagination today, “Palestine” and “Palestinian,” concepts that were understood quite differently during the time of the Mandate between the First and Second World Wars and until the 1948 War than they are understood today. This paper begins by describing the Mandate system and the territorial dispensation for Palestine that was secured within it. Taking the view that the Mandate system sought to secure some permutation of what one might understand as a type of proto-self-determination, it then assesses the extent to which one can reasonably conclude that a specifically Palestinian Arab “people” existed at the time in a juridical sense. This paper’s final substantive section draws upon evidence that States gave to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 and the United Nations’ work on the question of Palestine up to the 1948 War. This paper shows that rediscovering the evolution of Palestinian Arab proto-self-determination and “peoplehood” during the Palestine Mandate reveals the malleability of these concepts, something that remains the case, at least to a certain extent, to the present.
- Walter Rech, History and Normativity: Vico’s ‘Natural Law of Nations’
- Michel Erpelding, L’esclavage en droit international : aux origines de la relecture actuelle de la définition conventionnelle de 1926
- Raymond Kubben, Some Dutchmen Desperately Trying to Get to Lille. The Batavian Republic and the 1797 Anglo-French Peace Negotiations
- Victor Kattan, To Consent or Revolt? European Public Law, the Three Partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, and 1795) and the Birth of National Self-Determination
- Andreas Zimmermann, The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: Developing International Law Without Solving the Conflict
- Heinhard Steiger, Die Wiener Congressakte – Diskontinuität und Kontinuität des Europäischen Völkerrechts 1789–1818
- Wolfgang Weiss, Die Rechtsquellen des Völkerrechts in der Globalisierung: Zu Notwendigkeit und Legitimation neuer Quellenkategorien
- Beiträge und Berichte
- Moritz von Unger, Die Klima-Konferenz von Lima: Auf dem Weg zum Pariser Abkommen 2015
The question of the authority of international law over domestic authorities and the duties of state officials to international law are fundamental concerns in international legal theory and practice. The Authority of International Law: Obedience, Respect, and Rebuttal addresses these concerns by reframing the present accounts of authority in international law, construing its authority as imposing three different layers of duties on domestic officials: the duty to obey, the duty to respect, and the duty to rebut.
The book provides an original interpretation of this authority - one that is not tied to prior state consent or domestic constitutional frameworks. It offers a nuanced account, arguing that whether or not international law is obeyed within any given situation depends on the type of duty it imposes on the state, and that duty's normative force. There is no strict framework in which international law always trumps domestic law or vice versa. Instead, Çali presents a realistic account of when international law has absolute authority, and when it can afford a margin of appreciation to states.
The Authority of International Law contributes to existing debates by considering the gap between consent-based jurisprudential theories of authority and self-interest and identity-based theories of compliance, and by considering monism, dualism, and normative pluralism as theories for addressing authority competition between domestic legal orders and international law.
The conference will examine the settlement of tax disputes under international law, with the aim of analysing taxation issues through the lens of international law and its dispute settlement procedures. The interaction between taxation and investor rights as protected under international investment agreements will be explored. Taxation measures are often sought to be excluded from the scope of such agreements. But taxation can affect investor rights, when its effect is tantamount to expropriation, or when it imposes disproportionate or discriminatory burden on foreign investors. The relationship between tax law and international human rights law will also be considered. States’ imposition of taxes must be exercised in accordance with human rights principles. These limits will be examined by reference, in particular, to the jurisprudence the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The conference will also discuss the dispute settlement mechanisms in double taxation agreements and their relationships with other forms on international dispute settlement. The conference will bring together academics and practitioners from tax and international law backgrounds. The final session will be devoted to the work of junior scholars.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction over European Union law and holds a broad interpretation of these powers. This, however, may come into conflict with the jurisdiction of other international courts and tribunals, especially in the context of so-called mixed agreements. While the CJEU considers these 'integral parts' of EU law, other international courts will also have jurisdiction in such cases.
This book explores the conundrum of shared jurisdiction, analysing the international legal framework for the resolution of such conflicts, and provides a critical and comprehensive analysis of the CJEU's far-reaching jurisdiction, suggesting solutions to this dilemma. The book also addresses the special relationship between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights. The unique interaction between these two bodies raises fundamental substantive concerns about overlaps of jurisdiction and interpretation in the courts. Conflicts of interpretation manage largely to be avoided by frequent cross-referencing, which also allows for much cross-fertilization in the development of European human rights law. The link between these two courts is the subject of the final section of the book.
- Matthew Nicholson, The Political Unconscious of the English Foreign Act of State And Non-Justiciability Doctrine(s)
- Richard Garnett, State and Diplomatic Immunity and Employment Rights: European Law to the Rescue?
- Geert De Baere & Timothy Roes, EU Loyalty as Good Faith
- Chiara Armeni, Global Experimentalist Governance, International Law and Climate Change Technologies
- Jarrod Hepburn, The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Limited Relationship
- John Gillespie, Localizing Global Competition Law in Vietnam: A Bottom-Up Perspective
- Shorter Article
- Trevor C Hartley, Antisuit Injunctions in Support of Arbitration: West Tankers Still Afloat
Monday, October 12, 2015
Subsidiarity has become increasingly prominent in the theory and practice of global governance and international law. It responds to a need for a principled distribution of tasks between different layers of governance and expresses a general commitment to lower-level decisionmaking at a time when many fear that international authority might be expanding too fast. The symposium which this paper introduces interrogates the prospect and limits of the subsidiarity principle in the global context, focusing on different issue areas – regional economic integration, trade and investment, human rights, and international security, as well as cross-cutting empirical and normative aspects. This framing paper situates subsidiarity among competing principles, evaluates its appeal from a normative perspective and develops a number of conjectures about its prevalence, potential and limitations based on insights from comparative politics as well as the case studies in the symposium. The picture that emerges from this inquiry is not a homogeneous one. Subsidiarity is not present or desirable in all contexts, and empirically we find significant variation across issue areas and institutional settings. But the principle is beginning to shape different areas and institutional contexts, and it holds significant promise as normative and legal guidance for institutional design and the exercise of authority in the global realm. The landscape of subsidiarity is bound to remain variegated, but the concept is gaining ground and for many actors holds much appeal as a principled way of balancing the need for strong global cooperation with a continuing emphasis on the value of local self-government.
- Editorial Comment
- Sienho Yee, The South China Sea Arbitration: The Clinical Isolation and/or One-sided Tendencies in the Philippines' Oral Arguments
- Surya P. Subedi, China's Approach to Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Agenda
- Lung Wan Pun, Pre-Conflict Military Activities: Environmental Obligations and Responsibilities of States
- Kishor Uprety, The Kishenganga Arbitration: Reviving the Indus Treaty and Managing Transboundary Hydropolitics
- Kong Xiangwen, Achieving Accountability in Climate Negotiations: Past Practices and Implications for the Post-2020 Agreement
- Peter J. Laverack, The Rise of Asia and the Status of the French Language in International Law
Litigation at the International Court of Justice provides a systematic guide to questions of procedure arising when States come before the International Court of Justice to take part in contentious litigation. Quintana's approach is primarily empirical and emphasis is put on examples derived from actual practice. This book is mainly intended to help practitioners and advisors to governments engaged in actual cases and deliberately avoids theoretical discussions, favoring a pragmatic stance that is focused not so much on what authors have to say on any given topic concerning procedure, but rather on presenting, directly “from the Court’s mouth,” as it were, what ICJ judges actually have done and said over the last ninety years concerning such questions.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Territorial Leasing in Diplomacy and International Law focuses on an unexplored but relatively common practice in which states reallocate their rights on territory without altering formal boundaries or resorting to definitive cessions. As products of diplomacy, leases address a frequent situation that, in extreme cases, can lead to war: the desire by more than one state to exercise sovereign authority in the same place. As instruments of international law, they paradoxically reinforce the territorial integrity of states while raising questions about the nature of their sovereignty. This book draws from a large number of leases to examine the practice from historic to modern times, describing their elements in detail and assessing them from both political and legal perspectives.