- Ezequiel González-Ocantos, Evaluations of human rights trials and trust in judicial institutions: evidence from Fujimori's trial in Peru
- Anna Arstein-Kerslake & Eilionóir Flynn, The General Comment on Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a roadmap for equality before the law
- Katherine Tonkiss, Contesting human rights through institutional reform: the case of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission
- Malayna Raftopoulos, REDD+ and human rights: addressing the urgent need for a full community-based human rights impact assessment
- Lisa Forman, Luljeta Caraoshi, Audrey R. Chapman & Everaldo Lamprea, Conceptualising minimum core obligations under the right to health: How should we define and implement the ‘morality of the depths’
- George Riach & Zoe James, Strengthening the rule of law on the margins: experiences from Za'atari refugee camp, Jordan
- Jennifer Bond & Michele Krech, Excluding the most vulnerable: application of Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention to child soldiers
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Friday, April 1, 2016
- Matthew Seet, The Origins of UNHCR’s Global Mandate on Statelessness
- Nicolás Rodríguez Serna, Fleeing Cartels and Maras: International Protection Considerations and Profiles from the Northern Triangle
- Cynthia Orchard, The Almaty Process: Improving Compliance with International Refugee Law in Central Asia
- Seunghwan Kim, Lack of State Protection or Fear of Persecution? Determining the Refugee Status of North Koreans in Canada
- Special Issue: Law, Justice and the Security Gap
- Christine Chinkin, Mary Kaldor, Iavor Rangelov, & Sharon Weill, Special Issue: Law, Justice and the Security Gap
- Iavor Rangelov, Justice as a Security Strategy? International Justice and the Liberal Peace in the Balkans
- Rogier Bartels & Katharine Fortin, Law, Justice and a Potential Security Gap: The ‘Organization’ Requirement in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal law
- Sharon Weill, Reducing the Security Gap through National Courts: Targeted Killings as a Case Study
- Jeffrey Davis, Equality of Arms: Complying with International Human Rights Law in Cases Against Alleged Terrorists
- C.R.G. Murray, Nudging or Fudging? The UK Courts’ Counterterrorism Jurisprudence Since 9/11
- Tilmann Altwicker & Nuscha Wieczorek, Bridging the Security Gap through EU Rule of Law Missions? Rule of Law Administration by EULEX
- Deval Desai, Putting Security Culture and Experimentation into Context: Towards a View from the Field(s) of Rule of Law Reform
- Edwin Vermulst, In Memory of Professor John H. Jackson
- Petros C. Mavroidis, John H. Jackson: A Mentor and a Friend
- Lorand Bartels, The Relationship between the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement: An Analysis of Hierarchy Rules in the WTO Legal System
- Shin-yi Peng, GATS and the Over-the-Top Services: A Legal Outlook
- Gary Winslett, How Regulations Became the Crux of Trade Politics
- Tsai-yu Lin, Inter-Mingling TRIPS Obligations with an FET Standard in Investor-State Arbitration: An Emerging Challenge for WTO Law?
- Nohyoung Park & Myung-Hyun Chung, Analysis of a New Mediation Procedure under the WTO SPS Agreement
- Zhongmei Wang, Negative List in the SHPFTZ and Its Implications for China’s Future FDI Legal System
- Chang-fa Lo, Coordinative Approach to Resolve Normative and Operational Conflicts between Inner and Outer-FTAs
Thursday, March 31, 2016
- Richard B. Stewart, State Regulatory Capacity and Administrative Law and Governance under Globalization
- Eyal Benvenisti, Democracy Captured
- José Alvarez, Is the Trans Pacific Partnership’s Investment Chapter the New “Gold Standard”?
[Since the sixteenth century], sovereignty and property went down different paths, finding themselves, among other places, in the juxtaposition between ‘public international law’ and ‘private law’. New postcolonial studies of international legal history are inspired by a keen interest to trace the ways of power within international legal concepts and institutions. It is hard to see a more compelling justification for any legal history, or perhaps any history tout court. But if power and authority are the ultimate subjects of these histories, then their scope must be expanded to also capture the migration that has separated the two types of law - sovereignty and property - from each other as well as how, despite their different trajectories, the two can only be well understood in their relationship with each other. They are the yin and yang of global power.
Following the Second World War, the United States would become the leading 'neoliberal' proponent of international trade liberalization. Yet for nearly a century before, American foreign trade policy was dominated by extreme economic nationalism. What brought about this pronounced ideological, political, and economic about face? How did it affect Anglo-American imperialism? What were the repercussions for the global capitalist order? In answering these questions, The 'Conspiracy' of Free Trade offers the first detailed account of the controversial Anglo-American struggle over empire and economic globalization in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. The book reinterprets Anglo-American imperialism through the global interplay between Victorian free-trade cosmopolitanism and economic nationalism, uncovering how imperial expansion and economic integration were mired in political and ideological conflict. Beginning in the 1840s, this conspiratorial struggle over political economy would rip apart the Republican Party, reshape the Democratic Party, and redirect Anglo-American imperial expansion for decades to come.
Call for Papers
The Place of International Human Rights Law in Times of Crisis
On the occasion of the 12th ESIL Conference in Riga, the ESIL Interest Group on International Human Rights Law invites submissions for a half day workshop on ‘The Place of International Human Rights Law in Times of Crisis on 7 September 2016 in Riga.
The 2016 Riga Conference asks whether international law is up to the task of dealing with particular crises. In our call, we ask for papers focused on this question from the perspective of international human rights law. In what types of crises does international human rights law operate? How well does it address the crises it faces, ranging from governing conflict, to migration, to climate change, to the use and application of new technologies? Is international human rights law central and effective in crisis management or is it relegated to the margins? Is international human rights law exist in a perpetual in crisis-management mode? Has it managed to adapt and evolve to new types of crises? How does it co-exist with other international law regimes applicable during crisis? Are models of co-regulation emerging? How are these models assessed and analysed?
Whilst we are open on how the authors would like to frame the ‘crises’ that international human rights law addresses or encounters, we welcome papers that focus on the challenges posed by various crises on the discipline of international human rights law as such and how crises impact the making, interpretation, modification, expansion, displacement or demise of international human rights law. We also welcome papers that offer inter-disciplinary perspectives.
The selection panel will give priority to paper submissions that focus on issues that are not covered by the fora and agorae of the main conference (please see conference website for more information) and to those who do not have a speaking slot at the main conference.
The Application Process
We invite submissions of abstracts of no more than 300 words. Selection will be based on how closely tied the abstract is to the theme of the workshop; scholarly merit; and with regard to producing an engaging workshop. All submissions are expected to have a clear working definition of ‘crisis’.
Each submission should include the following in the same document:
(a) short bio containing the author’s name, institutional affiliation, contact information and e-mail address;
(b) an abstract of no more than 300 words; and
Applications should be submitted by 15 April 2016 to ESIL-IHRL2016@ku.edu.tr
Abstracts will be reviewed by the co-chairs of the Interest Group (Başak Çalı, Lorna McGregor and Ivana Radačić).
All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process by 15 May 2016. Accepted full papers are due by 15 August 2016.
Please note that the ESIL Interest Group on International Human Rights Law is unable to provide funds to cover the conference registration fee or related transport and accommodation costs.
For further information about the ESIL Interest Group on International Human Rights Law, please visit: http://esil-ihrl.tumblr.com
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Coordinating Committee of the ESIL-SEDI Interest Group on International Biolaw has the pleasure of inviting you to participate in the International Workshop “INTERNATIONAL BIOLAW IN TIMES OF CRISIS: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES” in Riga (Latvia) on 7th of September 2016, from 11:00 to 18:00, coinciding with the 12th ESIL Annual Conference: “How International Law Works in Times of Crisis” (8th-10th September 2016).The main objective of this International Workshop –in line with the general subject of the ESIL-SEDI Conference – will be progress and challenges of International Biolaw in times of crisis. This topic includes new forms of warfare, the rise of extremist terrorism, the fall of sovereign states, the unprecedented flow of migrants/refugees, the increase of the nationalism, climate change and environmental threats, problems with economies and financial markets at different levels...All these risks and threats have consequences for International Biolaw, affecting progress and posing challenges. Based on these subjects, we have prepared a broad programme allowing you to participate by explaining your research or experience on some of these issues. With this aim, we encourage you to participate in this International Workshop submitting your paper to either of the following two panels.
FIRST PANEL: INTERNATIONAL BIOLAW IN TIMES OF CRISIS: THE INTERNATIONAL APPROACH
SECOND PANEL: INTERNATIONAL BIOLAW IN TIMES OF CRISIS: THE EUROPEAN APPROACH
Papers will be submitted in English or French. The deadline for submission of abstracts is the 15th of June 2016 to email@example.com The abstract must fit on one sheet (500 words maximum). The author will be informed whether the paper has been accepted on 30th of June. The papers accepted will be published in a scientific review with the contributions of the participants at this workshop
Should principles of legal interpretation differ according to the nature or purpose of a legal instrument? In the domestic context, most discussions of interpretation proceed on the assumption that for each type of legal instrument – such as constitutions, statutes, contracts, and wills – there is a different set of interpretive rules, standards, and canons. In international law, interpretive principles for its most high-profile legal instrument, the international treaty, conventionally advocate a uniform approach to construction: regardless of the form, character, and subject matter of the treaty, interpretation should be treaty-blind. This Article challenges this long-standing view and argues that in light of the complex and multi-faceted character of the modern treaty, international courts and scholars should embrace a divergent approach to treaty interpretation. The Article illustrates the pitfalls of the stubborn adherence to and invocation of the uniform approach through an analysis of its application by international criminal courts. International criminal law treaties such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are hybrid entities that are simultaneously a criminal code, a compact between states committed to anti-impunity, and a human rights instrument. Drawing on the domestic analogy, the Article posits that with the fragmentation of international law and the proliferation in specialized treaty regimes, each with their own adjudicative institutions, the treaty is best conceived as a short-hand legal device for instruments that can be as varied as contracts, constitutions, and statutes. Going even further, the constituent parts of a single treaty may perform vastly different functions and cement different kinds of legal relationships between multiple entities. The uniform approach to interpretation fails to do justice to this varied character of treaty devices. The Article highlights the promise of a divergent approach to treaty interpretation by exposing the real world consequences of adopting different interpretive methodologies for the constituent parts of modern treaties such as the Rome Statute. It distinguishes between the statutory, contractual, human rights oriented, and institutional provisions of the Rome Statute and demonstrates the results that follow from the application of a richer interpretive framework to the construction of the modern international treaty.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
This article discusses the abundant scholarship and practice on the sources of IHRL with a view to showing that legal argumentation on the sources of IHRL is built on the coexistence of exceptionalist claims – whereby sources of IHRL are said to depart from general international law – and generalist claims – whereby sources of IHRL are said to be anchored in general international law. It is argued that this intrinsic ambivalence of the scholarship and practice pertaining to the sources of IHRL is informed by the fundamental expansionist nature of IHRL. The argument is thus made that the constant oscillation between exceptionalism and generalism in the scholarship and practice pertaining to the sources of IHRL can be traced back to the expansionism that lies at the heart of IHRL. This article is an attempt to shed light on the various expansionist uses of the sources of international law.
This article starts by outlining how IHRL scholarship and practice are built on interdependent claims of exceptionalism and generalism and discusses the ambivalence according to which IHRL is meant to be both autonomous from general international law but still part of it (section 1). It proceeds with showing how this ambivalence serves an expansionist project (section 2). This expansionist project is then further examined in relation to the sources of IHRL and the various expansionist uses of sources are discussed (section 3). In a fourth section, the relative successes of such expansionist uses of the sources are mentioned, as well as some of the paradoxes that they bring about (section 4). The article ends with a few concluding remarks (section 5).
The 2016 theme reflects an enduring question: the concept of authority in international law. That the international legal system is a legal system properly socalled should by now be an accepted fact: even if not always and universally enforced, the validity of international legal rules functions itself as a reason for compliance, quite independently of the nature or character of the actions to be done. The legitimacy of international law, therefore, derives from more than the consent to be bound.
However, the systematic character of international law raises a number of interesting questions: what are the formal characteristics of international law that justify our understanding of it as an autonomous legal system? Who are the institutions, officials and agents that are endowed with the authority to interpret, apply, and enforce international law? What is the role of international lawyers in the construction of authority in the international legal system? Our technical fluency in the vocabulary of international law positions us not only as the custodians of the international legal order, but also enables us to speak out on behalf of international law in many distinct areas of international relations. Accordingly, international lawyers go beyond serving as judges, arbitrators, and advocates: often, they participate in mandates which exceed the strict remit of legal expertise, serving on fact-finding missions, commissions of enquiry, or diplomatic negotiations. International lawyers bask, therefore, in the reflected authority of the international legal system they themselves have worked to construct and to sustain.
Another point to consider is the nature of non-legal expertise, and how the international legal system grapples with claims to non-legal authority. The obvious, most illustrative examples relate to international lawyers’ grappling with scientific or technical expertise, most prominently at the WTO but increasingly in judicial institutions of general jurisdiction. It might also be asked whether international lawyers should more broadly embrace such external expertise, and what the impact might be upon their authority in doing so? How are claims to expertise cognised, evaluated or legitimated within the practice of international law? Has the emergence of increasingly complex disputes led to intervenors/amici curiae becoming an indispensable element of international legal proceedings? Can lawyers still ‘go it alone’ without the aid and assistance of technical, scientific or academic expertise, or does the authority of the legal system diminish in relation to its claims to autonomy?
Dramatic shifts in the global economy, the environment, technological innovation, geopolitical power structures, and human mobility are forcing societies around the world to redefine their normative foundations. These shifts are creating new frontiers in the physical and conceptual structure of our international order.
Growing migration, climate, and public health challenges disrupt the salience of geographic borders. Non-state actors such as regional organizations and ISIS demand a more nuanced taxonomy of the subjects of international law. Technological advances such as cyber warfare, digital surveillance, and automated weapons are changing the terms and consequences of international conflict. Calls for transparency in international dispute resolution, and the increasing role of public issues such as financial regulation and energy policy in private disputes, are redefining the nature of commercial adjudication.
The dynamic frontiers of our international order require that scholars and lawyers chart new frontiers in the theory and practice of international law. At its 110th Annual Meeting in Spring 2016, the American Society of International Law (ASIL) invites policymakers, practitioners, academics, and students of international law to reflect upon these shifting frontiers in the world and in law, to devise new modes of thinking, and to address the questions they present.
Dumberry: The Formation and Identification of Rules of Customary International Law in International Investment Law
Rules of customary international law provide basic legal protections to foreign investors doing business abroad. These rules remain of fundamental importance today despite the growing number of investment treaties containing substantive investment protection. In this book, Patrick Dumberry provides a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of custom in the field of international investment law. He analyses two fundamental questions: how customary rules are created in this field and how they can be identified. The book examines the types of manifestation of State practice which should be considered as relevant evidence for the formation of customary rules, and to what extent they are different from those existing under general international law. The book also analyses the concept of States' opinio juris in investment arbitration. Offering guidance to actors called upon to apply customary rules in concrete cases, this book will be of significant importance to those involved in investment arbitration.
- Torsten Stein, Begriff und Bedeutung des Volkes im Völkerrecht
- Eckart Klein, Die Evolution von Gruppenrechten im internationalen Menschenrechtsschutz
- Norman Weiß, Der Schutz von Minderheiten als Aufgabe des Völkerrechts
- Hans-Joachim Heintze, Indigene Völker als Träger kollektiver Rechte – Kampf um die Zuerkennung des Selbstbestimmungsrechts
- Roland Bank, Die deutsche Praxis des Flüchtlingsschutzes und die Rolle der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention in Deutschland: Tendenz zur Öffnung für völkerrechtliche Standards?
- Marco Sassòli, Die Anwendbarkeit des humanitären Völkerrechts auf Aufständische und bewaffnete Gruppen: Status und Durchsetzung
- Thomas Fitschen, »Staatengruppen«: diplomatische und rechtliche Relevanz
- Chin Leng Lim, The worm's view of history and the twailing machine
- Kenneth J. Vandevelde, The liberal vision of the international law on foreign investment
- Leon Trakman & David Musayelyan, Caveat investors – where do things stand now?
- Gus Van Harten, Reforming the system of international investment dispute settlement
- David Schneiderman, The paranoid style of investment lawyers and arbitrators: investment law norm entrepreneurs and their critics
- Peter Muchlinski, The COMESA Common Investment Area: substantive standards and procedural problems in dispute settlement
- Karl P. Sauvant, Lessons from the negotiations of the United Nations Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations and related instruments
- Aniruddha Rajput, India and investment protection
- Wenhua Shan & Hongrui Chen, China-US BIT negotiation and the emerging Chinese BIT 4.0
- Kyla Tienhaara & Todd Tucker, Regulating foreign investment: Methanex revisited
- Howard Mann, The new frontier: economic rights of foreign investors versus government policy space for economic development
- Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Giving arbitrators carte blanche – fair and equitable treatment in investment treaties
- Chin Leng Lim, Is the umbrella clause not just another treaty clause?
- Jean Ho, Internationalisation and state contracts: are state contracts the future or the past?
- Jiangyu Wang, State capitalism and sovereign wealth funds: finding a 'soft' location in international economic law
- Chin Leng Lim, The many-headed hydra and laws which rage of gain, a chapter in conclusion
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Ethnicity and International Law presents an historical account of the impact of ethnicity on the making of international law. The development of international law since the nineteenth century is characterised by the inherent tension between the liberal and conservative traditions of dealing with what might be termed the 'problem' of ethnicity. The present-day hesitancy of liberal international law to engage with ethnicity in ethnic conflicts and ethnic minorities has its roots in these conflicting philosophical traditions. In international legal studies, both the relevance of ethnicity, and the traditions of understanding it, lie in this fact.
This book fundamentally reinterprets the history of international human rights in the post-1945 era by documenting how pivotal the Global South was for their breakthrough. In stark contrast to other contemporary human rights historians who have focused almost exclusively on the 1940s and the 1970s - heavily privileging Western agency - Steven L. B. Jensen convincingly argues that it was in the 1960s that universal human rights had their breakthrough. This is a ground-breaking work that places race and religion at the center of these developments and focuses on a core group of states who led the human rights breakthrough, namely Jamaica, Liberia, Ghana, and the Philippines. They transformed the norms upon which the international community today is built. Their efforts in the 1960s post-colonial moment laid the foundation - in profound and surprising ways - for the so-called human rights revolution in the 1970s, when Western activists and states began to embrace human rights.
- Volume 377
- W.J. Kassir, Le renvoi en droit international privé – technique de dialogue entre les cultures juridiques
- M.B. Noodt Taquela, Applying the Most Favourable Treaty or Domestic Rules to Facilitate Private International Law Co-operation
- B. Tuzmukhamedov, Legal Dimensions of Arms Control Agreements. An Introductory Overview
Attard, Fitzmaurice, Martinez, & Hamza: The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law. Volume III: Marine Environmental Law and International Maritime Security Law
This three-volume Manual on International Maritime Law presents a systematic analysis of the history and contemporary development of international maritime law by leading contributors from across the world. Prepared in cooperation with the International Maritime Law Institute, the International Maritime Organization's research and training institute, this a uniquely comprehensive study of this fundamental area of international law.
Volume III is devoted to the marine environmental law and maritime security law. The first part of Volume III deals in depth with issues of most fundamental importance in the contemporary world, namely how to protect the marine environment from pollution from ships, land-based sources, seabed activities, and from or through air. In explaining these types of pollution, various conventions concluded under the auspices of the IMO (such as MARPOL 73/78 and the 1972 London Convention) and soft law documents are analysed. The volume also includes chapters on the conventions relating to pollution incident preparedness, response, cooperation, and the relevance of regional cooperation. It additionally discusses liability and compensation for pollution damage.
The second part of volume III examines an issue of increasing importance in a world threatened by terrorism, piracy, and drug-trafficking. Chapters in this part cover the topics of piracy; stowaways; human trafficking; illicit drugs; terrorism; military uses of the sea; and new maritime security threats, such as the illegal dumping of hazardous wastes and toxic substances, as well as illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
- Jan Ellison, Foreword
- Hugo Slim, Civilians, Distinction and the Compassionate View of War
- Scott Sheeran & Catherine Kent, Protection of Civilians, Responsibility to Protect, and Humanitarian Intervention: Conceptual and Normative Interactions
- Ralph Mamiya, A History and Conceptual Development of the Protection of Civilians
- Stian Kjeksrud, Jacob Aasland Ravndal, Andreas Øien Stensland, Cedric de Coning & Walter Lotze, Protecting Civilians: Comparing Organizational Approaches
- Haidi Willmot, The Evolution of the United Nations Collective Security System
- Andrew Clapham, Protection of Civilians Under International Human Rights Law
- Jamie A Williamson, Protection of Civilians Under International Humanitarian Law
- Erin Mooney, Displacement and the Protection of Civilians under International Law
- Mona Ali Khalil, Legal Aspects of the Use of Force by United Nations Peacekeepers for the Protection of Civilians
- Siobhan Wills, International Responsibility for Ensuring the Protection of Civilians
- Jean-Marie Guéhenno, The United Nations and the Protection of Civilians
- Ben Kioko & Lydia Wambugu, The African Union and the Protection of Civilians
- Bruno Stagna Ugarte, Security Council Diplomacy on the Protection of Civilians: A Convoluted History
- Fiona Blyth & Patrick Cammaert, Using Force to Protect Civilians in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations
- Stian Kjeksrud, The Utility of Force for Protecting Civilians
- Michael Keating & Richard Bennett, The Contribution of Human Rights to Protecting People in Conflict
- Sara Pantuliano & Eva Svoboda, Humanitarian Protection - Moving beyond the Tried and Tested
- Lise Grande, The Problems and Dilemmas of Helping to Build Protection Capacities
- Aditi Gorur & Nils Carstensen, Community Self-protection
Monday, March 28, 2016
Has the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia persuaded target populations that the findings in its judgments are true? To answer that question, foundational for transitional justice processes, the article discusses a series of public opinion surveys in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. The detail and amount of data obtained through these surveys provide an unprecedented level of insight into the reception of factual determinations by international criminal tribunals by target audiences in post-conflict societies.
The surveys show that denialism and revisionism are rampant in the former Yugoslavia. For example, twenty years on, barely one-fifth of the Bosnian Serb population believe that any crime (let alone genocide) happened in Srebrenica, while two-fifths say that they never even heard of any such crime. The acceptance levels for many other serious crimes are in the single digits. They also demonstrate a strong relationship between the respondents’ ethnicity, their perception of the ICTY’s bias against members of their own group, and their distrust in the ICTY and in its findings, which increases the more the ICTY challenges the group’s dominant internal narratives.
This article tries to answer the “what” question – what was the impact of the ICTY on the attitudes of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia towards specific crimes that were the object of its judgments? At best, the answer to that question is that the ICTY failed to persuade the relevant target populations that the findings in its judgments are true.This is simply a fact, as established by the best evidence we have available. Equally important, but more open and contestable, is the “why” question – why has the ICTY proven to be so ineffectual in inducing attitude change? I address this “why” question in detail in a companion article forthcoming in the Georgetown Journal of International Law.
Note: This is a pre-print draft that has not been copy-edited by the AJIL.
Das Investitionsschutzrecht gestattet es ausländischen Investoren nicht erst seit TTIP und CETA, die jeweiligen Gaststaaten vor internationalen Schiedsgerichten auf Schadensersatz zu verklagen. Problematisch ist dabei besonders, dass den Schiedsgerichten ein großer Freiraum eingeräumt wird, da die Vorschriften, auf deren Grundlage sie entscheiden, oft sehr unbestimmt sind. Mit Hilfe einer neu entwickelten Rechtsprinzipientheorie der Legitimität, die auf die Abwägung zwischen dem Schutzinteresse der Investoren und dem effektiven Schutz der von einer Investition betroffenen Individuen abstellt, gelingt es Philipp B. Donath, die Normen des Investitionsschutzrechts präzise und einzelfallbezogen auslegen zu können. Damit konkretisiert der Autor sowohl verfahrens- als auch materiellrechtliche Bestimmungen des Investitionsschutzrechts. Er zeigt so Möglichkeiten einer ganzheitlichen inneren Reform der Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit auf, die nicht auf institutionelle Änderungen angewiesen ist.
Reinisch: The Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies: A Commentary
The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies entered into force more than 60 years ago. This Commentary offers for the first time a comprehensive discussion covering both Conventions in their entirety, providing an overview of academic writings and jurisprudence for a legal field of particular practical relevance and gives both the academic researcher as well as the practitioner a unique source to understand the complexity of legal issues that the UN, its Specialized Agencies, their officials, Member States' representatives, and experts face in today's world.
CALL FOR PAPERS: REVISITING THE ROLE OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN NATIONAL SECURITY
Many conversations in the U.S. about situations of armed conflict – within civil society, academia, and the U.S. government – center on “national security law,” often drawing primarily from domestic law and military perspectives. International law is sometimes set aside in these discussions. This workshop aims to draw the international legal aspects of armed conflicts to the forefront once again.
This workshop, co-organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Delegation in Washington, and faculty at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, Stanford Law School, and Cardozo School of Law, is for public international law scholars and practitioners. It aims to drive discussions of public international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law, into conversations, in the U.S. in particular, on national security issues and situations of armed conflict.
The workshop will provide time to discuss scholarly articles that are in process, as well as other major issues of international legal concern regarding situations of armed conflict. Following discussions, the group of participants may choose to collaborate on an outcome document.
We invite you to submit an abstract or draft of an article for discussion. A small number of papers will be selected for discussion at the workshop. The article does not need to be finished – an abstract or draft may be submitted.
When: May 19th, 2016 (full day)
Where: Cardozo Law School, New York City
Submissions: Please send your name, current affiliation, and paper proposal to Tracey Begley, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Deadline for submissions: April 8, 2016
A limited amount of travel funds may be available.
Hosted by Cardozo Law School; Co-organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross Delegation for the United States and Canada, and faculty at Loyola Law School Los Angeles and Stanford Law School.
International law has long differentiated between international and non-international armed conflicts, traditionally regulating the former far more comprehensively than the latter. This is particularly stark in the case of detention, where the law of non-international armed conflict contains no rules on who may be detained, what processes must be provided to review their detention, and when they must be released. Given that non-international armed conflicts are now the most common form of conflict, this is especially worrying, and the consequences of this have been seen in the detention practices of states such as the US and UK in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This book provides a comprehensive examination of the procedural rules that apply to detention in non-international armed conflict, with the focus on preventive security detention, or 'internment'. All relevant areas of international law, most notably international humanitarian law and international human rights law, are analysed in detail and the interaction between them explored. The book gives an original account of the relationship between the relevant rules of IHL and IHRL, which is firmly grounded in general international law scholarship, treating the issue as a matter of treaty interpretation. With that in mind, and with reference to State practice in specific non-international armed conflicts - including those in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Iraq - it is demonstrated that the customary and treaty obligations of States under human rights law continue, absent derogation, to apply to detention in non-international armed conflicts. The practical operation of those rules is then explored in detail. The volume ends with a set of concrete proposals for developing the law in this area, in a manner that builds upon, rather than replaces, the existing obligations of States and non-State armed groups.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
ESIL International Economic Law Interest Group - Call for Papers
2016 Riga ESIL Conference
Workshop of the IEL IG – 7 September 2016
At the Conference of the European Society of International Law taking place in Riga, Latvia, the ESIL International Economic Law Interest Group, chaired by Elisa Baroncini, Marion Panizzon and Peter-Tobias Stoll, will convene a full day workshop, which will take place on 7 September 2016.
Three panels will be organized, which will deal with 1) The future of world economic law: new mega-regional trade and investment agreements and the proposed International Investment Court,
2) International Economic Law and sustainable development and climate change,
3) International Economic Law and economic sanctions.
For each of the three panels of the workshop the ESIL IELIG invites papers, which should be unpublished, in an advanced stage of completion, and ready to be included in the ESIL SSRN Conference Paper Series and in the ESIL Conference Proceedings. If published otherwise, the ESIL IEL IG is happy to authorize authors to indicate the presentation of a related paper at a ESIL IEL IG workshop. The working languages of the ESIL IELIG are English and French, and thus the proposals may be submitted in English or French (see below for the paper submission procedure and timeline).
Call for Papers 1: The future of world economic law: new mega-regional trade and investment agreements and the proposed International Investment Court
The recent tendency to conclude free trade agreements is outstanding in regard to the sheer numbers of such agreements or negotiation projects as well as in terms of their intention to provide for a "deep" integration. Also, there is much doubt whether Art. XXIV GATT / V GATS alone can effectively balance multilateral inclusiveness and regional exclusivity. It appears, therefore, that new ways are needed to reflect upon the future of the international economic order.
Also some fresh thinking is required in view of international investment law, which recently has seen the innovative proposal of an international investment court. This proposal, which has been included in the EU-Vietnam and EUCanada Free Trade Agreements, marks a considerable point of departure for international investment law, which urgently needs some analysis and discussion.
Call for Papers 2: International economic law and sustainable development and climate change
The year 2015 has seen two important United Nations conferences, which have been considered a remarkable success and at the same time are closely related to international economic law. In September 2015, UN Sustainable Development Summit formally adopted an ambitious new sustainable development agenda with 17 newly formulated sustainable development goals (SDGs). This way, the concept of sustainable development is getting more and more articulated. As most of these goals relate to the economy or rely on economic activity for their achievement, a reflection is urgently required as to how these new SDGs may impact international economic law.
SDG No. 13 calls for “Climate Action” and in this way points to the second important achievement in 2015, which has been the successful conclusion of the 2015 Paris Conference on climate change. And indeed, a fresh view on the international economic law implications is also called for in this regard. From emission trading to border tax adjustments, from flexible mechanisms to technology transfer: manifold aspects involved in the implementation of the results of the Paris Conference relate to international economic law and should be discussed at our workshop.
Call for Papers 3: International Economic Law and Economic Sanctions
The recent economic sanctions imposed against Russia by the US and the EU and the related reactions have raised a long-standing issue relating to the compatibility of economic sanctions with free trade rules. However, in addition to its trade dimension, the situations mentioned here or other possible scenarios for economic sanctions furthermore raise new questions in view of international investment law.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE
Submissions are welcome from senior and junior scholars. Abstracts must not exceed 800 words, and have to be submitted to the following mail addresses: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org.
In addition to the abstract, each submission should contain a separate file containing information on:
- The topic of the call for papers for which the abstract is submitted
- he author’s name and affiliation
- A short (one page) author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications
- The author’s contact details, including email address and phone number
- The membership of the author with ESIL and the date of affiliation
The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 15 May 2016
Successful applicants will be informed by 30 May 2016
The deadline for the submission of the papers of accepted abstracts is 1 August 2016.
The Workshop will take place on Wednesday, 7 September 2016
The deadline for the submission of final papers for publication is 1 November 2016.