Conference: The Protection of Persons in Times of Disasters. International and European Legal Perspectives

On March 3-4, 2016, the International Disaster Law Project will host a conference on "The Protection of Persons in Times of Disasters. International and European Legal Perspectives," in Rome. The program is here.

Call for Submissions: Migration and Development: some reflections on current legal questions

A call for submissions has been issued for a collective volume prepared by the Department of Law of the University of Naples "Federico II" and the Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development of the National Research Council of Italy. The theme is "Migration and Development: some reflections on current legal questions." The call is here.

Call for Papers: Rethinking Sustainable Development in Terms of Justice

A call for papers has been issued for the first Tarragona International Environmental Law Colloquium. The theme is "Rethinking Sustainable Development in Terms of Justice." Here's the call:

Sustainable development is a normative concept that was conceived of as a paradigm for reconciling competing and conflicting interests in economic development, social justice and environmental protection. In legal terms, sustainable development has been portrayed in manifold ways. Some view it as a normative matrix for re-interpreting existing legal principles and rules and fostering the emergence of new ones, or as a meta-legal principle that exerts interstitial normativity. Others describe it as a decision-making framework for maintaining and achieving human well-being. Yet, the perception seems to spread in academia and civil society that, as a normative concept, sustainable development may already have seen its best days. Instead, renewed claims for the reparation of historical wrongs and the promotion of procedural fairness and distributive justice in international environmental law are increasingly gaining salience. Is sustainable development still a suitable concept to address these claims? What normative and/or institutional changes are required in different areas of international environmental law and governance to tackle these demands and promote social fairness and environmental sustainability?

The organizing committee welcomes paper and poster proposals that address the overall theme of the colloquium. In so doing, paper and poster proposals may focus on any of the following topics in this non-exhaustive list:

• Climate change and law
• Environmental liability
• Energy law
• Indigenous people and the environment
• Ecological debt
• Economy and the environment
• Human rights and the environment
• Natural resources protection
• Environmental justice, ethics and global governance
• Gender and the environment

Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract of no more than 400 words by 31st January 2016 7th February 2016, indicating whether it is intended for oral or poster presentation. The official language of the TIEC is English. All abstracts and posters must be presented in English. The authors of abstracts selected for oral presentation will not be expected to submit completed papers. However, we do encourage interested authors to submit completed papers which will be considered for publication in the Catalan Environmental Law Journal (Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental).

Harrison & Sekalala: Addressing the compliance gap? UN initiatives to benchmark the human rights performance of states and corporations

James Harrison (Univ. of Warwick - Law) & Sharifah Sekalala (Univ. of Warwick - Law) have posted Addressing the compliance gap? UN initiatives to benchmark the human rights performance of states and corporations (Review of International Studies, Vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 925–945, December 2015). Here's the abstract:

This article examines under what conditions benchmarking and associated measurement initiatives produced by UN human rights actors could, and should, play a role in promoting compliance with international human rights norms. It is organised around a comparative analysis of UN benchmarking initiatives for states and corporations. With regard to states, the article argues that ideological misgivings and technical limitations have so far triumphed over aspirations that indicators and benchmarks might play a significant role in increasing compliance with international human rights norms. With regard to corporations, we find that measuring human rights performance has been framed by the recent UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights using a much more expansive and less quantitative set of benchmarks. These latter benchmarks do not appear to be creating conditions under which the human rights performance of corporations is effectively interrogated, and as a result there is a danger of superficial legitimation. Comparative analysis of these two initiatives reveals some of the tensions inherent in utilising benchmarking in transnational efforts to achieve human rights compliance. It also allows us to contribute to broader debates about the quantification of performance and its potential and limitations as a tool of global governance.

Call for Papers: Second All Art and Cultural Heritage Law Conference

The Art-Law Centre of the University of Geneva has issued a call for papers for the second All Art and Cultural Heritage Law conference, to be held June 24, 2016, at the University of Geneva. Here's the call:

This conference will host two panels: ‘Cultural Heritage in the Crossfire: Reality and Effectiveness of Protection Efforts’ and ‘Art and Cultural Heritage: What Is the Role for Ethics?’. The aim of the conference is to take stock of, and to further contribute to the recent discussions regarding the protection of cultural heritage from damage and the role of ethics in the art world. In particular, the Art-Law Centre is interested in papers pursuing normative, empirical, comparative or theoretical approaches. We welcome contributions from law and other disciplines, including philosophy, criminology, archaeology and history.

The panel ‘Cultural Heritage in the Crossfire: Reality and Effectiveness of Protection Efforts’ shall focus on the protection of cultural heritage from damage arising not only from war-like situations and intentional attacks, but also from non-violent processes, such as the realization of development projects and natural calamities. Therefore papers are requested on, but not limited to, the following topics: cultural genocide; State responsibility; individual criminal responsibility; the role of the International Criminal Court; illicit trafficking and money laundering; the protection of cultural heritage from acts of terrorism; the safeguarding of cultural heritage from natural and human-induced disasters.

The panel ‘Art and Cultural Heritage: What Is the Role for Ethics?’ shall discuss art and cultural heritage issues which cannot be solved, in whole or in part, by legal rules, and analyse the value of soft law in this regard. Subjects covered in papers may include, but are not limited to: the responsibilities of cultural institutions; the legal relevance of ethics; restitution; restoration and conservation; heritage as a common good; sponsorship; governance of cultural institutions; cultural heritage and human rights; stewardship; cultural heritage in the digital age; the challenges posed by the evolving definition of cultural heritage.

Academics and practitioners from all regions of the world are invited to submit papers approaching these themes from various angles with the aim to (a) develop new conceptualizations, (b) engage in a cross-disciplinary debate, or (c) identify new directions for education and research.

Paper proposals should include a title, an abstract no longer than 300 words, and should be accompanied by a short biography and full contact details of the author, including institutional affiliation, mailing address and e-mail address. In the case of co-authored papers, one person should be identified as the corresponding author. Due to restrictions of space on the conference schedule, multiple submissions by the same author are not accepted.

Paper proposals should be emailed to the Art-Law Centre’s team at art-adr@unige.ch by 29 February 2016. Successful applicants will be notified by 14 March 2016, and would be required to submit a summary of their presentation by 23 May 2016.

The Conference will take place at the University of Geneva. Speakers will be required to meet the cost of travel and accommodation.

All participants are expected to contribute with an original and unpublished article to an edited publication that will form the intended output of this workshop. The deadline for the submission of the papers is 30 September 2016.

New Volume: Finnish Yearbook of International Law

The latest volume of the Finnish Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 23, 2012-2013) is out. Contents include:

• Special Section: Rule of Law
• Stephen Humphreys, The Rule of Law as Morality Play
• Florian Hoffmann, Revolution or Regression? Retracing the Turn to Rights in ‘Law and Development’
• Articles
• Ruth Donner, Jean Monnet, Treaties and Peace in Europe
• Sabine Frerichs, The Law of Market Society: A Sociology of International Economic Law and Beyond
• Padraig McAuliffe, Rhetoric and Realpolitik: Interrogating the Relationship Between Transitional Justice and Socio-Economic Justice
• Henry Jones, The Radical Use of History in the Study of International Law
• Patrick C. R. Terry, The 1948 Recognition of the State of Israel by the USA and the USSR and International Law
• Panu Minkkinen, The Container and the Septic Tank: Statism, Life, and the Geopolitics of Territoriality
• Eva Kassoti, The Juridical Nature of Unilateral Acts in International Law

New Issue: Transnational Legal Theory

The latest issue of Transnational Legal Theory (Vol. 6, nos. 3-4, 2015) is out. Contents include:

• Ko Hasegawa, Normative translation in the heterogeneity of law
• Dominic N. Dagbanja, The conflict of legal norms and interests in international investment law: Towards the Constitutional-General International Law Imperatives Theory
• Symposium: Doing Law Beyond the State: Methodological Questions in International and Transnational Legal Theory
• Patrick Capps & Richard Collins, Doing law beyond the state: Methodological questions in international and transnational legal theory
• Julie Dickson, Who's afraid of transnational legal theory? Dangers and desiderata
• Michael Giudice, Conceptual analysis, legal pluralism, and EU law
• Richard Collins, The problematic concept of the international legal official
• Anne van Mulligen, Framing deformalisation in public international law
• Henrik Palmer Olsen, International courts and the doctrinal channels of legal diplomacy

Conference: European Convention on Human Rights and the Crimes of the Past

On February 26, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Society for International Law will co-host a conference on "European Convention on Human Rights and the Crimes of the Past," at the premises of the Court in Strasbourg. Registration is open. The program is here.

New Issue: Questions of International Law

The latest issue of Questions of International Law / Questioni di Diritto Internazionale (no. 24, 2016) is out. Contents include:

• The 13 November 2015 attacks and their aftermath: multilevel responses to terrorism
• Introduced by Antonello Tancredi and Paolo Palchetti
• Jean-Cristophe Martin, Les frappes de la France contre l’EIIL en Syrie, à la lumière de la résolution 2249 (2015) du Conseil de sécurité
• Peter Hilpold, The evolving right of counter-terrorism: An analysis of SC resolution 2249 (2015) in view of some basic contributions in International Law literature

Venzke: Semantic Authority

Ingo Venzke (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) has posted Semantic Authority (in Fundamental Concepts of International Law, Jean d’Aspremont & Sahib Singh eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This Chapter introduces the concept of semantic authority, defined as an actor’s capacity to find acceptance for its interpretative claims or to establish its own statements about the law as content-laden reference points for legal discourse that others can hardly escape. In order to both clarify its heritage and its novelty. The Chapter first provides an account of the theoretical context in which the concept of semantic authority is embedded — the lines of thinking in whose wake the concept starts making sense (II.). The concept is above all indebted to understandings of (international) law as a product of its communicative practice. In contrast to similar past and present voices, however, it purports to highlight the powerful actors in legal discourse so as to anchor critique and normative inquiry. Second, the Chapter clarifies the nature of semantic authority and the dynamics that sustain it (III.). While persuasiveness can increase an actor’s semantic authority, it is a constitutive feature of such authority that it must persist in the absence of agreement in substance. What is more, while semantic authority thrives on sociological legitimacy, it is a separate question of whether it is indeed well justified. Among the factors that sustain it, it is the capacity to link up with tradition that stands out. Third and finally, the chapter summarizes the concept’s trajectory — what has been done with it and how it might still develop further (IV.).

Call for Papers: IV Conferencia Bienal de la Sociedad Latinoamericana de Derecho Internacional

The Latin American Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for its fourth biennial conference, to be held August 25-27, 2016, in Santiago, Chile. The theme is "América Latina y el Orden Mundial Contemporáneo: Balance y Perspectivas desde la Integración Regional." The call is here.

New Issue: Revista Tribuna Internacional

The latest issue of Revista Tribuna Internacional (Vol. 4, no. 8, 2015) is out. Contents include:

• Invitado especial
• Walther L. Bernecker, La unificación de Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial: Retos y desafíos en un mundo globalizado
• Especial - Corte Internacional de Justicia: Bolivia c. Chile
• Corte Internacional de Justicia, Sentencia: Obligación de negociar una salida al Océano Pacífico (Bolivia c. Chile). Excepción Preliminar. 24 de septiembre del 2015
• Mario Arnello Romo, Corte Internacional de Justicia: Una sentencia errónea y ajurídica. Una derrota política previsible
• Paula Cortés González, La obligación de negociar de buena fe en el Derecho Internacional: una reflexión a la luz del fallo de la Corte Internacional de Justicia sobre la excepción preliminar opuesta por Chile en la demanda boliviana sobre la obligación de negociar una salida al Océano Pacífico
• Jaime Lagos Erazo, Excepciones Preliminares (Caso Bolivia c. Chile)
• José Rodríguez Elizondo, Chile-Bolivia: Un caso de diplomacia secuestrada
• Artículos
• Alejandro Cáceres Monroy, Protección en el trabajo para la comunidad LGBT ¿Qué ha dicho el Sistema Internacional?
• Edgard Junior Cuestas Zamora & Andrés Eduardo Martínez Cano, El Tratado de No Proliferación y la cuestión nuclear iraní: entre la efectividad jurídica y la voluntad política
• Philipp Peter Haubold, The judicial influence of the principle of mutual recognition for the free movement of goods in European Union Law and its workability
• Jeremy Daniel Levy Morchio, Recepción en Chile de la Ley Modelo sobre Insolvencia Transfronteriza de la Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional: Breve análisis del centro de principales intereses del deudor como nuevo factor de conexión
• Jelena Obradović, The International Court of Justice and “non-universal” customary norms
• Alwyn Sebastian, Migrant Workers in the Middle East: Not an In Shah Allah Situation
• Wellington Migliari, La función social negativa del derecho de propiedad en sistemas políticos constitucionales y la afirmación popular de los derechos humanos

LASIL Interest Group on the "Historia del Derecho Internacional"

The Latin American Society of International Law has announced the creation of a new interest group on the "Historia del Derecho Internacional." Those who wish to join the interest group should contact the coordinator, Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral. Here's the idea:

El grupo de estudio de la Historia del Derecho Internacional (GEHID) de la Sociedad Latino-Americana de Derecho Internacional nace como foro abierto para la discusión académica de perspectivas innovadoras y la promoción de redes internacionales de investigación colaborativa en la Historia del Derecho Internacional desde una óptica plenamente abierta a la interdisciplinariedad. El GEHID se orientará al estímulo de la investigación sobre la Historia del Derecho Internacional en diversos periodos de la historia política, social, económica y cultural de Latino-América desde las manifestaciones de carácter proto-iusinternacionalista ya presentes en la América pre-colombina hasta los más recientes fenómenos que han jalonado la evolución histórica de la vida internacional de la región latino-americana en los albores del siglo XXI en dialogo con la Historia de las relaciones de América Latina con Europa, Norteamérica y el resto del mundo. En el desempeño de sus propósitos, el GEHID promoverá estándares de excelencia en la materia en colaboración con otros grupos de estudio sobre la Historia del Derecho Internacional y materias adláteres, tales como la Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales y su discurso histórico, la Historia del Derecho, la Historia de la ideas y del pensamiento político, la Historia diplomática o, entre otros, la Historia de la Economía Política Internacional, en otras comunidades epistemológicas, tanto a nivel nacional, como internacional, a fin de fomentar la puesta en valor de la experiencia ius-internacionalista de Latino-América, de la perspectiva latinoamericana del Derecho internacional y de sus tradiciones jurídicas y particularidades históricas en el estudio comparado de la Historia Global del Derecho Internacional en el que Latino-América se halla actualmente sub-representada.

El diseño de un programa de investigación en torno a áreas de estudio que potencien el desarrollo gradual de una cultura investigadora regida por los principios de rigor, significancia y originalidad en la Historia del Derecho internacional será combinada con la participación del GEHID en la conmemoración de grandes hitos históricos con repercusión en el desarrollo del Derecho internacional a fin de promover una mayor conciencia histórica entre los juristas internacionales en el desempeño de sus actividades en los planos teórico y práctico, además de un mayor conocimiento de los valores que informan la promoción de una cultura de cooperación internacional plural y democrática a través de la profundización en una Historia del Derecho Internacional que abraza la reflexión crítica como su mejor garante. En el desarrollo de sus trabajos, el GEHID prestará una atención particular a aspectos metodológicos e historiográficos contribuyendo al estudio y a la divulgación de la teoría y la metodología del Derecho Internacional, consciente, con Benedetto Croce que “toda la Historia es Historia contemporánea”, con lo que se quiere, generalmente, indicar que toda la escritura histórica se realiza, en un grado u otro, desde la perspectiva del presente y, también, que toda la escritura histórica constituye una intervención intelectual en el presente. El GIHED prestará, por ello, una particular atención a aquellas corrientes de pensamiento internacionalista que han contribuido a revitalizar e inyectar una nueva auto-conciencia crítica y aguijón creativo intelectual, imprescindible para la promoción de una investigación reflexiva, fructífera y ética al tradicionalmente descuidado campo de estudio de la Historia del Derecho internacional sin, por ello, olvidar, como recordase E. H. Carr, que “la Historia es la experiencia del historiador” y que, por tanto, escribir “la Historia (del Derecho Internacional) es el único modo de hacerla”.

El GEHID se interesará, asimismo, de forma especial por el desarrollo histórico de sub-disciplinas jurídico-internacionales – la Historia del Derecho internacional de los Derechos Humanos, Historia del Derecho Penal Internacional, Historia del Derecho Internacional del Medio-Ambiente, Historia del Derecho Económico Internacional et caetera – en una era marcada por la proliferación normativa y la fragmentación del Derecho Internacional atendiendo, de este modo, al fenómeno en desarrollo de la fragmentación de la propia Historia del Derecho internacional. El GEHID contribuirá a la contextualización histórica del Derecho internacional y al examen de los efectos sociales, culturales y políticos del discurso internacionalista entendido, como corresponde a la ambivalencia intrínseca a todo fenómeno jurídico, en una doble vertiente, es decir, en tanto que instrumento de emancipación y de dominación, en diversos periodos históricos. El GEHID participará en las conferencias de la SLADI, diseñará y publicitará convocatorias de ponencias abiertas a jóvenes investigadores, además de promocionar encuentros de estudio en colaboración con otros grupos de interés sobre la Historia del Derecho internacional y disciplinas adláteres en Latino-América y en otras áreas geográficas. El GEHID se mostrará particularmente activo en la búsqueda de colaboración con revistas especializadas y editoriales internacionales a fin de diseminar los frutos de sus investigaciones en, siempre que ello sea posible, acceso libre y, de este modo promover, la inclusión del estudio de la historia del derecho internacional en el currículo jurídico y explorar el enorme potencial de su valor didáctico en el aula universitaria.

New Issue: Journal of Conflict Resolution

The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (Vol. 60, no. 2, March 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Nam Kyu Kim, Revisiting Economic Shocks and Coups
• Walter Enders, Gary A. Hoover, & Todd Sandler, The Changing Nonlinear Relationship between Income and Terrorism
• Matthias Basedau, Birte Pfeiffer, & Johannes Vüllers, Bad Religion? Religion, Collective Action, and the Onset of Armed Conflict in Developing Countries
• Anthony S. Marcum & Jonathan N. Brown, Overthrowing the “Loyalty Norm”: The Prevalence and Success of Coups in Small-coalition Systems, 1950 to 1999
• Clionadh Raleigh, Pragmatic and Promiscuous: Explaining the Rise of Competitive Political Militias across Africa
• Charles Butcher & Isak Svensson, Manufacturing Dissent: Modernization and the Onset of Major Nonviolent Resistance Campaigns
• Kurt A. Ackermann, Jürgen Fleiß, & Ryan O. Murphy, Reciprocity as an Individual Difference
• Stephanie Dornschneider & Nick Henderson, A Computational Model of Cognitive Maps: Analyzing Violent and Nonviolent Activity in Egypt and Germany

Special Issue: The Framework Convention on Global Health

The latest issue of Global Health Governance (Vol. 9, no. 1, Spring-Fall 2015) focuses on "The Framework Convention on Global Health." Contents include:

• Special Issue: The Framework Convention on Global Health
• Lance Gable, Ames Dhai, Robert Marten, Benjamin Mason Meier, & Jennifer Prah Ruger, Introduction: The Framework Convention on Global Health
• Brigit Toebes, The Framework Convention on Global Health: Considerations in Light of International Law
• Sharifah Rahma Sekalala, Normative Considerations Underlying Global Health Financing: Lessons for the Framework Convention on Global Health
• Jalil Safaei, Health for the Common Good
• Anuj Kapilashrami, Suzanne Fustukian, & Barbara McPake, Global Prescriptions and Neglect of the “Local”: What Lessons for Global Health Governance Has the Framework Convention on Global Health Learned?
• Sebastian Taylor, A Political Economy of International Health: Understanding Obstacles to Multilateral Action on Non-Communicable Disease
• Debra L. DeLaet, What a Wonderful World It Would Be: The Promise and Peril of Relying on International Law as a Mechanism for Promoting a Human Right to Health
• Mara Pillinger, It’s Not Just for States Anymore: Legal Accountability for International Organizations under the Framework Convention on Global Health
• Florian Kastler, Why the World Health Organization Should Take the Lead on the Future Framework Convention on Global Health
• Belinda Bennett, Women’s Health and a Framework Convention on Global Health
• Emilie K. Aguirre, The Importance of the Right to Food for Achieving Global Health

Altwicker, Cheneval, & Diggelmann: Völkerrechtsphilosophie der Frühaufklärung

Tilmann Altwicker (Universität Basel - Law), Francis Cheneval (Universität Zürich - Philosophy), & Oliver Diggelmann (Universität Zürich - Law) have published Völkerrechtsphilosophie der Frühaufklärung (Mohr Siebeck 2016). Contents include:

• Oliver Diggelmann, Die Entstehung des modernen Völkerrechts in der frühen Neuzeit
• Andreas Their, Historische Semantiken von ius gentium und “Völkerrecht”
• Manfred Walther, Der Begriff des Völkerrechts bei Spinoza
• Michael J. Seidler, Der Begriff des Völkerrechts bei Samuel Pufendorf
• Andreas Wagner, Entstehung und Fortentwicklung des Begriffes der Societas Humana in der frühen Neuzeit
• Tobias Schaffner, Societas Humana bei Hugo Grotius
• Anne Kühler, Societas Humana bei Christian Wolff
• Tilmann Altwicker & Francis Cheneval, Menschenrechtliche Ansätze in der Frühaufklärung
• Michael Becker, Libertas religionis bei Alberico Gentili – Nele Schneidereit: Christian Wolffs Lehre von den iura connata
• Simone Zurbuchen, Eigenes und Fremdes im Völkerrecht der Frühen Neuzeit: Rechtfertigung und Kritik der Unterwerfung der Völker der Neuen Welt
• Matthias Mahlmann, Der Schutz von individuellen Rechten, Strafe und Krieg in der Naturrechtstheorie von Hugo Grotius
• Michael Ivo Räber, Das Eigene und Fremde bei John Locke. Lockes Legitimation von Eigentumsrechten und der britischen Kolonisierung Amerikas
• Christoph Good, Völkerrechtsphilosophie der Frühaufklärung und die “Praktiker” des Völkerrechts
• Thomas Kleinlein, “Wollen die leeren Worte kein Ende haben?” Die Frühe Neuzeit in der heutigen Völkerrechtswissenschaft

Call for Papers: Strengthening the Validity of International Criminal Tribunals (Reminder)

Pluricourts, at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law, has issued a call for papers for a conference on "Strengthening the Validity of International Criminal Tribunals." The deadline is February 29, 2016. Here's the call:

Strengthening the Validity of International Criminal Tribunals Conference

Pluricourts, University of Oslo

29 – 30 August 2016

CALL FOR PAPERS

International criminal law (ICL) re-emerged onto the global stage in the 1990s in a flood of good will and optimism. Two decades later, with its honeymoon stage well behind it, states, practitioners, scholars and others are asking where we go from here. The ad hoc tribunals are in the process of winding down amid mixed reviews. The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has failed to live up to many of the optimistic expectations that were imposed upon it, with some African states such as Namibia and South Africa taking steps to withdraw from the Rome Statute. At the same time, calls are being made for new courts and ad hoc jurisdictions to be created as a solution to atrocities and for new crimes to be added to the list of core international crimes. The processes of international criminal justice are also under scrutiny, with some asking whether international criminal courts are trying to do too much. Some see an answer in complementarity- that national courts should assume the responsibility for trying those responsible for the worst atrocities, but this too may not be the panacea it appears to be. This conference seeks to explore these controversies. It seeks practical solutions to make international criminal justice more effective and relevant as it enters a more mature stage in its development.

The conference will bring together a mix of practitioners and scholars from the field of international criminal justice to exchange perspectives and to suggest solutions. We are particularly interested in the experiences of those who work in the field- fact finders, prosecution and defence lawyers, judges, NGO representatives and those involved in the post-trial stage such as members of the prison service. What challenges do they face? What works? What does not work?

We seek papers pursuing empirical, normative, comparative or theoretical approaches, and encourage papers applying alternative theories such as feminist theory, critical legal theory and TWAIL perspectives. We welcome contributions from law and the social sciences, including philosophy, sociology, criminology, psychology and history.

Papers are requested on the following topics:

1. More Courts? More Crimes?

Despite the existence of the permanent ICC, there continue to be calls for new jurisdictions to be created as a solution to atrocities- an ad hoc court for Syria, an International Court against Terrorism, an EU sponsored tribunal for the prosecution of war crimes and alleged human trafficking in Kosovo, a special tribunal for South Sudan. Is there a need for new courts? What does this say about the ICC itself, the political realities of ICL institutionalisation, the realities of contemporary violence and our imagination as responders to large-scale human suffering?

There are several challenging issues of global importance that ICL does not address at present, is it time for this to change? Are there other crimes which should be included within the remit of international criminal law, such as ecocide, terrorism, narcotics, piracy, human trafficking, money-laundering and corruption, that would make international criminal law more relevant and would increase its effectiveness?

2. Making the processes of international criminal justice more effective

What can be done to streamline international criminal procedure without undercutting the legitimate interests of key constituencies, such as states, victims and communities affected by violence, or the need to safeguard fair trial guarantees? Are we being overambitious in our expectations of ICL and its institutions? What role does the judiciary play in increasing the effectiveness of ICL procedure? Does the way that common and civil law traditions intermingle in ICL enhance the system or confuse it?

How are the various functions and responsibilities of a fully-fledged criminal justice system distributed within and across international criminal courts and tribunals? Does the particular way in which they are formulated leave any of these functions and responsibilities inadequately covered? Should that affect how we critique the courts and tribunals? For example, does the fact that each international criminal court or tribunal has its own office of the prosecutor, rather than, say, an independent international prosecutor’s office with standing to appear in multiple jurisdictions, colour the way in which we debate issues such as prosecutorial independence, accountability and selectivity? Should there be an international criminal defence bar? An international public defender’s office? Might the accountability of child soldiers be better addressed if more international courts were like the Special Court for Sierra Leone, with jurisdiction and special provisions over juvenile offenders? What would make the presidents of international criminal courts and tribunals more suitable as authorities responsible for overseeing the enforcement of sentences and other penitentiary matters for international convicts? How can reparations for victims of international crimes be awarded equitably across institutions and regions? How can we make our critiques pertinent, on point and meaningful in general?

In what way do different actors, such as states, various organs of international criminal courts and tribunals, states, NGOs and others interact with each other? Does this relationship function in a way which makes international criminal justice more effective? Do their expectations and actions really converge around international criminal justice institutions in a way that strengthens the system? How can this be improved?

3. Learning from and relying upon other courts

Some see complementarity as providing at least one answer to making international criminal justice more effective and relevant. However, what is the reality? What are the dilemmas of complementarity? How well is complementarity working in different countries, such as the Balkans, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Does Libya give us reason to pause over what consequences we are prepared to accept under the banner of positive complementarity? What regional approaches are being taken? Should regional criminal courts (e.g. the new jurisdiction envisaged in Africa) be encouraged as an intermediate layer in the ICC’s complementarity regime and, if so, what adjustments and safeguards would be needed? What problems are there? How can these problems be solved?

International criminal courts and tribunals are not the first kind of international institutions to have experienced similar challenges- the European Court of Human Rights and the WTO for example. How have these institutions responded? Are there lessons that international criminal institutions can learn?

Paper proposals should be emailed to c.m.bailliet@jus.uio.no by 29 February 2016 with an abstract no longer than 500 words. Please include your CV. All proposals will be answered by 15 April 2016. Draft papers should be submitted by 30 June 2016. Conference papers will be selected for publication either in a special edition of a journal or in an anthology.

Ohlin: The Combatant's Stance: Autonomous Weapons on the Battlefield

Jens David Ohlin (Cornell Univ. - Law) has posted The Combatant's Stance: Autonomous Weapons on the Battlefield (International Law Studies, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Do Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) qualify as moral or rational agents? This paper argues that combatants on the battlefield are required by the demands of behavior interpretation to approach a sophisticated AWS with the “Combatant’s Stance” — the ascription of mental states required to understand the system’s strategic behavior on the battlefield. However, the fact that an AWS must be engaged with the combatant’s stance does not entail that other persons are relieved of criminal or moral responsibility for war crimes committed by autonomous weapons. This article argues that military commanders can and should be held responsible for perpetrating war crimes through an AWS regardless of the moral status of the AWS as a culpable or non-culpable agent. In other words, a military commander can be liable for the acts of the machine independent of what conclusions we draw from the fact that combatants — even artificial ones — must approach each other with the combatant’s stance.

The basic framework for this liability was established at Nuremberg and subsequent tribunals — both of which focused on how a criminal defendant can be responsible for allowing a metaphorical “machine” — such as a concentration camp — to commit an international crime. The novelty in this technological development is that the law must shift from dealing with the metaphor of the “cog in the machine” to a literal machine. Nonetheless, this article also concludes that there is one area where international criminal law is ill suited to dealing with a military commander’s responsibility for unleashing an AWS that commits a war crime. Many of these cases will be based on the commander’s recklessness and unfortunately international criminal law has struggled to develop a coherent theoretical and practical program for prosecuting crimes of recklessness.

Shany: International Human Rights Bodies and the Little-Realized Threat of Fragmentation

Yuval Shany (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem - Law) has posted International Human Rights Bodies and the Little-Realized Threat of Fragmentation. Here's the abstract:

This note discusses the coordination problems encountered by international human rights bodies, who apply comparable legal standards emanating from separate treaties, and confront significant challenges of procedural coordination and normative harmonization. Particular attention will be given in this regard to the policy considerations invoked by such bodies.

The discussion comprises two parts: First, I will discuss the doctrinal tools and theoretical constructs which international human rights bodies have been using in order to mitigate normative clashes with other such bodies. Such tools and constructs may explain the ability of human rights adjudicators to resist normative fragmentation. The second part of this note will address the policy considerations that may explain some of the reasons why international human rights bodies may choose to issue certain decisions which would, nonetheless, clash with decisions of other human rights bodies, and why, in most cases, pursuing normative harmony appears to be preferable to normative fragmentation.

von Engelhardt: Die Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) und demokratische Legitimität

Benjamin von Engelhardt has published Die Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) und demokratische Legitimität: Globale Ordnung zur Regelung wirtschaftlicher Interdependenzen und ihre Auswirkungen auf territorial organisierte Demokratie (Mohr Siebck 2016). Here's the abstract:

Der WTO wird vielfach ein Mangel an demokratischer Legitimität vorgeworfen. Benjamin von Engelhardt schlägt vor dem Hintergrund dieser Problematik einen Perspektivenwechsel vor: Müssen Staaten ihre Handlungen nur gegenüber dem eigenen Volk rechtfertigen oder gegenüber allen Betroffenen? Wenn allen Menschen die gleiche Würde zugeschrieben wird, kann nur Letzteres gelten. Wie lassen sich dann aber grenzüberschreitende externe Wirkungen, die gerade im Wirtschaftsbereich zunehmend unvermeidbar sind, demokratisch legitimieren? Föderal orientierte Kosmopolitiker leiten daraus die Notwendigkeit eines Weltstaates ab, der alle Betroffenen umfasst. Das WTO-Recht bietet eine alternative Lösung, indem es zwar die demokratisch nicht legitimierten externen Wirkungen nationaler Handlungen untersagt, Regulierungszuständigkeiten aber auf nationaler Ebene belässt. Dieser Ansatz durchzieht eine Reihe eingehend analysierter WTO-Schiedssprüche und kann als Auslegungsmaxime zur Anwendung kommen.

Kolb: The Law of Treaties: An Introduction

Robert Kolb (Univ. of Geneva - Law) has published The Law of Treaties: An Introduction (Edward Elgar Publishing 2016). Here's the abstract:

Permeating all facets of public international law, the modern law of treaties is a fundamental aspect of governance in the ‘democratized’ world. In this contemporary introduction, Robert Kolb provides a refreshing study that is both legally analytical and practical.

Written in a highly readable style, the book explores the key topics through concise chapters, which are organized into two parts. The first of these gives a structured overview of the law of treaties along with practical examples. The second provides a critical engagement with the underlying issues and discusses the multi-dimensional problems raised by legal regulations, explored through specific case studies.

Call for Papers: ANZSIL Post-Graduate Research Students Workshop

The Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) has issued a call for papers for a Postgraduate Research Students Workshop, to be held June 29, 2016, at the Australian National University. The workshop will be followed by the ANZSIL Conference, June 30-July 2, 2016. Here's the call:

POST‐GRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTS WORKSHOP

CANBERRA, WEDNESDAY 29 June 2016

CALL FOR PAPERS: Deadline: 17 March 2016

The Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Postgraduate Research Students Workshop will be held on Wednesday, 29 June 2016, from 9.30am until 5.00 pm. The Workshop will take place at University House, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

The aims of the Workshop are to provide postgraduate degree research students with an opportunity to present their research to their peers, to discuss their experiences of postgraduate research and to make academic and professional connections. Participants will give presentations of an aspect of their research for approximately 15 minutes, followed by a roundtable discussion of each paper. There is no registration fee. Morning tea, lunch, and afternoon tea will be provided.

The Workshop will be followed by the 24th ANZSIL Annual Conference, which will take place from Thursday, 30 June to Saturday, 2 July 2016. Participants who presented at the Workshop will also be given an opportunity, if they wish, to present their research through a poster display at the Annual Conference.

ANZSIL will waive the conference registration fee (including the cost of the Conference dinner) for all participants at the ANZSIL Postgraduate Workshop who wish to attend the main Conference. (Workshop participants are still required to complete the conference and dinner registration form.) Participants attending the main ANZSIL Conference may be asked to provide a short report on individual ANZSIL Conference sessions for the ANZSIL Newsletter.

Postgraduate research students wishing to present their work on an international law topic are encouraged to submit their proposals for presentation at the Workshop. Applicants must be enrolled in a higher degree research program (PhD, SJD, or Research Masters) at an Australian or New Zealand university.

Applicants should submit a one-page abstract and brief one-page curriculum vitae (both as word documents) by email to anzsil@law.anu.edu.au by no later than Thursday, 17 March 2016. Please include the heading on your email message ‘PG Workshop Application: [Your Name]’. The organisers will let applicants know of the outcome of their application by early April. Participants who have not previously presented at an ANZSIL Postgraduate Workshop will be given priority.

Participants will be asked to provide a brief contribution on their work for a report on the Workshop, for inclusion in the ANZSIL Newsletter.

The Coordinators of the Postgraduate Workshop are Associate Professor Petra Butler (School of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand) and Daniel Joyce (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia).

Workshop: Adaptation and Change in Global Governance

On February 4-5, 2016, ESADEgeo (ESADE Business School’s Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics) and IBEI (Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals) will host the fourth Barcelona Workshop on Global Governance. The theme is "Adaptation and Change in Global Governance." The program is here. Registration is here. Here's the idea:

The world is changing, bIBEIut 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 obserESADEgeovers 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?

Collins, Thomas, Broom, & Vu: A Game-Theoretical Model of Investment Treaty Arbitration

David A. Collins (City Univ. London - Law), Philip Thomas (City Univ. London - School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences), Mark Broom (City Univ. London), & Trung Hieu Vu (City Univ. London) have posted A Game-Theoretical Model of Investment Treaty Arbitration. Here's the abstract:

This article investigates the application of game theory to the sphere of investor-state dispute settlement and related dispute resolution strategies through international arbitration. When deciding whether either to bring or to defend a claim rather than pursue settlement, investors and states will select a strategy to maximize their respective payoffs, either by securing compensation or successfully defeating a claim for compensation. This article will develop a model decision making strategy for claimant investors and defendant states based on the observed patterns of outcomes in actual investment treaty arbitration awards. Embedding the problem in the context of utility and hence risk-aversion, it will go on to offer a general solution for the arbitration "game" based on risk-neutral participants using historic data on the allocation of costs, the probability of claimant victory and the scaling of claims in past arbitration awards. The mathematics will quantify the probability of claimant victory below which it would not be reasonable for a potential claimant to proceed. Furthermore, an algorithm has been developed for calculating the settlement sum that the respondent may offer with a reasonable expectation of acceptance by the claimant. While the claimant's chances of success may be disputed by the two parties in any particular case, a long-run average for the probability of success may be calculated for a general claimant, which might prove more acceptable as a proxy. The resulting algorithm is then tested and corroborated against published data on previous arbitration outcomes.

New Issue: European Journal of International Relations

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Relations (Vol. 22, no. 1, March 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Lorenzo Zambernardi, Politics is too important to be left to political scientists: A critique of the theory–policy nexus in International Relations
• Jonathan Graubart & Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi, David in Goliath’s citadel: Mobilizing the Security Council’s normative power for Palestine
• Xavier Guillaume, Rune S. Andersen, & Juha A. Vuori, Paint it black: Colours and the social meaning of the battlefield
• Shahar Hameiri & Lee Jones, Rising powers and state transformation: The case of China
• Tom Lundborg, The limits of historical sociology: Temporal borders and the reproduction of the ‘modern’ political present
• Anthony King, The female combat soldier
• Seanon S. Wong, Emotions and the communication of intentions in face-to-face diplomacy
• James Brassett, British comedy, global resistance: Russell Brand, Charlie Brooker and Stewart Lee
• Susanne Therese Hansen, Taking ambiguity seriously: Explaining the indeterminacy of the European Union conventional arms export control regime
• Philip Liste, Geographical knowledge at work: Human rights litigation and transnational territoriality

Yackee: The First Investor-State Arbitration

Jason W. Yackee (Univ. of Wisconsin - Law) has posted The First Investor-State Arbitration. Here's the abstract:

In recent years investor-state arbitration has become ubiquitous. Foreign investors who believe the states hosting their investments have violated their rights under international law routinely sue those states before international tribunals. Most investment law experts would probably identify the origins of the field in a famous “first”, the signing of the first bilateral investment treaty (between Germany and Pakistan) in 1959. But in fact, we can trace investor-state arbitration back much further — nearly a century further — to a long forgotten but nonetheless fascinating dispute between the Suez Canal Company and Egypt, arbitrated by a commission of legal and diplomatic luminaries appointed by Napoleon III, the Emperor of France. The arbitration is fascinating, in part, because the Company’s claim of mistreatment has a strikingly modern (and perhaps even timeless) character: under what circumstances, and with what consequences, can the government of the day change its laws in order to promote its conception of the public good, where the change negatively impacts, and perhaps even destroys, the value of the foreigner’s investments? The Suez Commission’s solution, based essentially on a principle of sanctity of contract, is one that finds significant support in modern jurisprudence. Citing “the contract” is, and long has been, a powerful rhetorical and legal weapon for the aggrieved investor.

Moeckli & White: Treaties as 'Living Instruments'

Daniel Moeckli (Univ. of Zurich - Law) & Nigel D. White (Univ. of Nottingham - Law) have posted Treaties as 'Living Instruments' (in Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties, Dino Kritsiotis & Michael Bowman eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This paper argues that a treaty may change in relation to changing social conditions and therefore justifiably be described as a ‘living instrument’. However, this is only possible if the following two elements are present: first, it is a predominantly constitutional or law-making, rather than contractual, treaty; second, it has an inbuilt dynamic for change in the form of a court, a quasi-judicial body, a political organ, a technical body or a regular (and active) conference of the states parties. It is the understanding of this body as a collective in relation to changed social conditions (and not the social conditions per se) that is the determinative factor. Under classical international law only a ‘living instrument’ that is driven by the collective understandings of all the states parties could be seen as fully respecting the principle of consent. However, it is reasonable to conclude that, by agreeing to the establishment of a political organ of limited membership or one that adopts decisions by majority vote, states have accepted an erosion of their consent. This holds all the more true for a treaty that establishes a judicial or quasi-judicial organ, since the states parties have thereby accepted that the treaty will be developed by (quasi-)judicial interpretation.

Amsterdam Center for International Law Lecture Series for Spring 2016

Here's the schedule for the Amsterdam Center for International Law's lecture series for Spring 2016:

• February 11, 2016: Jürgen Kurtz (Univ. of Melbourne - Law), The WTO and International Investment Law: Converging Systems
• April 21, 2016: Surabhi Ranganathan (Univ. of Cambridge - Law), Global Commons
• May 12, 2016 Rotem Giladi (Univ. of Helsinki - Law),Two Types of International Legal Historiography
• June 9, 2016: Başak Çalı (Koç Univ. - Law), The Authority of International Law

New Issue: International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

The latest issue of International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics (Vol. 16, no. 1, February 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Linn Persson, Åsa Persson, & Chanthy Sam, Implementation of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management in Cambodia: effects of regime design
• Richard Meissner & Inga Jacobs, Theorising complex water governance in Africa: the case of the proposed Epupa Dam on the Kunene River
• Olivia Gippner, The 2 °C target: a European norm enters the international stage—following the process to adoption in China
• Tobias Böhmelt & Gabriele Spilker, The interaction of international institutions from a social network perspective
• Charles Roger & Satishkumar Belliethathan, Africa in the global climate change negotiations
• Naghmeh Nasiritousi, Mattias Hjerpe, & Björn-Ola Linnér, The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles
• Naghmeh Nasiritousi & Björn-Ola Linnér, Open or closed meetings? Explaining nonstate actor involvement in the international climate change negotiations
• Stine Aakre, The political feasibility of potent enforcement in a post-Kyoto climate agreement

Conference: Reforms in UN Treaty Bodies and the European Court of Human Rights: Mutual Lessons? (Reminder)

On February 29-March 1, 2016, PluriCourts - Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law will hold a conference on "Reforms in UN Treaty Bodies and the European Court of Human Rights: Mutual Lessons?" The program is here. Here's the idea:

The UN treaty body reform process started with consultations initiated by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2009. Following the publication of a report by the High Commissioner, the process was concluded in 2014 by a UN General Assembly resolution (A/RES/68/268). The result included additional meeting time for the treaty bodies, harmonization of procedures, increased resources to the treaty body system, and capacity-building to assist member states in their implementation of their international obligations.

As concerns the ECtHR, a reform process has also been going on for several years, guided by the ministerial conferences in Interlaken (2010), Izmir (2011), Brighton (2012) and Brussels (2015). By the end of 2015 the Steering Committee for Human Rights will adopt a report on the long-term future of the convention system.

The conference will discuss these two reforms processes mentioned above focusing on:

1) The procedure of selection of members and judges
2) Potential solutions to the case load situation
3) The quality of reasoning
4) Margin of appreciation and subsidiarity

McDermott: Fairness in International Criminal Trials

Yvonne McDermott (Bangor Univ. - Law) has published Fairness in International Criminal Trials (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

With the acceptance of international criminal procedure as a self-sustaining discipline and as the tribunals established to try the most serious crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda have completed or are beginning to wind up their activities, the time is ripe for a critical evaluation of these international criminal tribunals and their legacy. By examining the due process standards embraced by the five contemporary international criminal tribunals, the author draws conclusions about how the right to a fair trial should be interpreted in international criminal law.

This volume addresses key conceptual questions on fairness, including: should international criminal tribunals set the highest standards of fairness, or is it sufficient for their practice to be 'just fair enough'? To whom does the right to a fair trial attach, and can actors such as the prosecution and victims be accurately said to benefit from that right? Does fairness require the full realization of a number of guarantees owed to the accused under the statutory frameworks of international criminal tribunals, or should we instead be concerned with the fairness of the trial 'as a whole'? What is the interplay between domestic and international courts on questions of procedural fairness? What are the elements of fairness in international criminal proceedings? And what remedies are available for breaches of fair trial rights?

Through an in-depth exploration of the right to a fair trial, the author concludes that international criminal tribunals should have a role in setting the highest standards of due process protection in their procedures, and that in so doing, they can have a positive impact on domestic justice systems.

Hindelang & Krajewski: Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law

Steffen Hindelang (Freie Universität Berlin - Law) & Markus Krajewski (Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg - Law) have published Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Contents include:

• Steffen Hindelang & Markus Krajewski, Introductory Observations
• Giorgio Sacerdoti, Investment Protection and Sustainable Development: Key Issues
• Peter Muchlinski, Negotiating New Generation International Investment Agreements: New Sustainable Development Oriented Initiatives
• Roland Kläger, Revising Treatment Standards: Fair and Equitable Treatment in Light of Sustainable Development
• Lukas Stifter & August Reinisch, Expropriation in the Light of the UNCTAD Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development
• Jonathan Ketcheson, Investor-State Dispute Settlement and Sustainable Development: Modest Reform
• Gus Van Harten, The EC and UNCTAD Reform Agendas: Do They Ensure Independence, Openness, and Fairness in Investor-State Arbitration
• J. Anthony VanDuzer, Sustainable Development Provisions in International Trade Treaties: What Lessons for International Investment Agreements?
• Katharina Berner, Reconciling Investment Protection and Sustainable Development: A Plea for an Interpretative U-Turn
• Helmut Philipp Aust, Investment Protection and Sustainable Development: What Role for the Law of State Responsibility
• Karsten Nowrot, Termination and Renegotiation of International Investment Agreements
• Sean Woolfrey, The Emergence of a New Approach to Investment Protection in South Africa
• Maria Luque, Reliance on Alternative Methods for Investment Protection through National Laws, Investment Contracts, and Regional Institutions in Latin America
• Leon E. Trakman & Kunal Sharma, Jumping Back and Forth between Domestic Courts and ISDS: Mixed Signals from the Asia-Pacific Region
• Peter-Tobias Stoll & Till Holterhus, The 'Generalization' of International Investment Law in Constitutional Perspective
• Frank Hoffmeister, The Contribution of EU Trade Agreements to the Development of International Investment Law
• Steffen Hindelang & Markus Krajewski, Concluding Remarks

NYU IILJ International Legal Theory Colloquium for Spring 2016

Here's the schedule for this spring's New York University School of Law Institute for International Law and Justice International Legal Theory Colloquium:

• January 25, 2016: Robert Howse (New York Univ. – Law), The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Understanding and Assessing Two Decades of Judicial Activism and Political Impasse
• February 1, 2016: Billy Melo Araujo (Queen’s Univ. Belfast – Law), New Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and the Reach of the World Trade System
• February 8, 2016: Katharina Pistor (Columbia Univ. – Law), Territory vs Money as Foundations of Order
• February 22, 2016: Turkuler Isiksel (Columbia Univ. – Political Science), Commercial Sociability in Global Order
• March 7, 2016: Nehal Bhuta (European Univ. Institute – Law), International Order and the State: Theories of the State in Grotius, Hobbes, and Pufendorf
• March 28, 2016: Beth Simmons (Harvard Univ. – Government), Order and Territorial Boundaries
• April 11, 2016: Katerina Linos (Univ. of California, Berkeley – Law), Joint Problems of International Organizations
• April 25, 2016: Lauren Benton (Vanderbilt Univ. – History), Legal Re-Ordering in the British Empire: On the Struggles to Build a Global Imperial Order

Hovell: The Power of Process: The Value of Due Process in Security Council Sanctions Decision-Making

Devika Hovell (London School of Economics - Law) has published The Power of Process: The Value of Due Process in Security Council Sanctions Decision-Making (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

The UN Security Council's transition to 'targeted sanctions' in the 1990s marked a revolutionary shift in the locus of the Council's decision-making from states to individuals. The establishment of the targeted sanctions regime, should be regarded as more than a shift in policy and invites attention to an emerging tier of international governance.

This book examines the need to develop a due process framework having regard to the uniquely political and crisis-based context in which the Security Council operates. Drawing on Anglo-American jurisprudence, this book develops procedural principles for the international institutional context using a value-based approach as an alternative to the formalistic approach taken in the literature to date. In doing so, it is recognized that due process is more than a set of discrete legal standards, but is a touchstone for the way the international legal order conceives of far larger questions about community, law and values.

New Issue: Global Trade and Customs Journal

The latest issue of Global Trade and Customs Journal (Vol. 11, no. 1, 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Folkert Graafsma, Yves Melin, Stuart Newman, & James Searles, Proposal for Improved Access to Investigation Files in EU Trade Defence Instrument Proceedings
• Serdar Baskin & Juni Vermulst, The EU and Turkey: Privileged Partner or More?
• Qing-Yun Jiang, Evolution of Classified Administration of Enterprises and the Harmonization of AEO System in Chinese Customs Reform

New Issue: Journal of the History of International Law

The latest issue of the Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d'histoire du droit international (Vol. 18, no. 1, 2016) is out. Contents include:

• Symposium: International Legal Histories of the Ottoman Empire
• Umut Özsu & Thomas Skouteris, International Legal Histories of the Ottoman Empire: An Introduction to the Symposium
• Davide Rodogno, European Legal Doctrines on Intervention and the Status of the Ottoman Empire within the ‘Family of Nations’ Throughout the Nineteenth Century
• Will Smiley, War without War: The Battle of Navarino, the Ottoman Empire, and the Pacific Blockade
• Berdal Aral, The Ottoman ‘School’ of International Law as Featured in Textbooks
• Will Hanley, International Lawyers without Public International Law: The Case of Late Ottoman Egypt
• Sarah Shields, Forced Migration as Nation-Building: The League of Nations, Minority Protection, and the Greek-Turkish Population Exchange