Saturday, May 21, 2016

Keohane & Victor: Cooperation and Discord in Global Climate Policy

Robert O. Keohane (Princeton Univ. - Woodrow Wilson School) & David G. Victor (Univ. of California, San Diego - School of Global Policy and Strategy) have posted Cooperation and Discord in Global Climate Policy (Nature Climate Change, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Effective mitigation of climate change will require deep international cooperation, which is much more difficult to organize than the shallow coordination observed so far. Assessing the prospects for effective joint action on climate change requires an understanding of both the structure of the climate change problem and national preferences for policy action. Preferences have become clearer in light of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties in December 2015. Although deep cooperation remains elusive, many partial efforts could build confidence and lead to larger cuts in emissions. This strategy of decentralized policy coordination will not solve the climate problem, but it could lead incrementally to deeper cooperation.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Pantaleo, Douma, & Takács: Tiptoeing to TTIP: What Kind of Agreement for What Kind of Partnership?

Luca Pantaleo (T.M.C. Asser Institute), Wybe Douma (T.M.C. Asser Institute), & Tamara Takács (T.M.C. Asser Institute) have published Tiptoeing to TTIP: What Kind of Agreement for What Kind of Partnership? (Centre for the Law of EU External Relations 2016). Contents include:
  • Davor Jančić, Democratic Legitimacy of Enhanced Regulatory Cooperation in TTIP
  • Joana Mendes, Regulatory Cooperation Under TTIP: Rulemaking and the Ambiguity of Participation
  • Wybe Douma, TTIP, Protection of the Environment and Consumers
  • Ingo Venzke, On the Functions, Authority and Legitimacy of Investor-State Arbitration: The Case of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
  • Luca Pantaleo, Lights and Shadows of the TTIP Investment Court System
  • Pieter Jan Kuijper, Some Final Questions and Conclusions

Alschner: The Impact of Investment Arbitration on Investment Treaty Design: Myth Versus Reality

Wolfgang Alschner (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) has posted The Impact of Investment Arbitration on Investment Treaty Design: Myth Versus Reality (Yale Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Investor-state arbitration (ISA) has shaped the practice, scholarship and teaching of international investment law, but to what extent has it shaped its substance? According to anecdotal evidence, states change their investment treaties in response to developments in investment arbitration. To separate myth from reality this article empirically investigates the effect of investment arbitration on treaty making through three impact channels: (1) investment clauses, (2) investment claims and (3) investment case law coding close to 1700 international investment agreements (IIA) across 55 clauses. Our analysis sheds new light on several normative debates within the field. First, we find that the omission or inclusion of investment clauses has no material effect on other treaty design elements. This suggests that ISA clauses are procedural add-ons, which bestow investors with enforcement rights, but do not alter the inter-state nature of the treaties’ substantive obligations. Second, contrary to prior anecdotal and empirical evidence, investment claims do not lead to systematic treaty design changes. Most innovation attributed to investment claims actually pre-dates them. Moreover, only in few countries did investment claims trigger treaty design changes. Hence, rather than worrying about overzealous responses by states to “rebalance” IIAs in the face of investment claims, we should be concerned about the field’s path-dependency and its entrenchment in a pre-arbitration architecture. Third, investment case law exerts the strongest impact on treaty making as controversial interpretive outcomes in investment arbitration trigger traceable changes in treaty design. Hence, states are more active in fine-tuning existing commitments than in designing new ones further entrenching IIAs’ path dependency and lack of innovation.

Call for Papers: Making International Economic Law Work: Integrating Disciplines and Broadening Policy Choices

The American Society of International Law's International Economic Law Interest Group has issued a call for papers for its next biennial conference, which will take place September 30-October 1, 2016, at the Georgetown University Law Center. The theme is: "Making International Economic Law Work: Integrating Disciplines and Broadening Policy Choices." Here's the call:



September 30, 2016-October 1, 2016

Georgetown University Law Center

Co-sponsored by the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL)


The conference will comprise:

  • Academic paper presentations drawn from an open call for papers

  • Invited papers and keynote speakers

  • Roundtable conversations with practitioners, governments officials, NGO representatives, think tank members

I. Overall Concept and Themes

Overall theme: Making International Economic Law Work: Integrating Disciplines and Broadening Policy Choices

We welcome paper proposals relating to the conference theme, or aspects thereof. One objective of this conference is to transcend the traditional trade, investment, finance and private ordering silos. We accordingly seek proposals that focus on cross-cutting issues.

From a research agenda perspective, we hope to foster a reflection on what international economic law as a discipline might look like when research focuses on the reality of blurred boundaries between the traditional fields of trade, investment, finance and monetary law.

From a policy perspective, we hope to explore the implications of legal imports from one field into another, how legal and policy options might be expanded in the face of converging trade, investment and financial law, as well as through emerging private and public-private sorts of ordering. Because the blurring boundaries have created challenges as well as opportunities, we also look forward to proposals identifying chasms and tensions that need to be addressed.

We encourage submissions on all aspects of international economic law, including those that do not focus on cross-cutting issues. The themes listed below are illustrative only and non-exhaustive. If your paper fits within one or more of these themes, please make a note of it in your proposal.

Illustrative Themes:

  • Cross-fertilization opportunities between trade, tax, monetary and finance law: How does monetary law impact trade and finance, and vice-versa?

  • Soft law in international economic law: Are there lessons to be drawn from financial regulation for trade and investment?

  • How does regionalism shape and challenge international economic law?

  • Dispute resolution in the face of trade and investment treaty convergence: What are the opportunities and challenges raised by recent innovations? Is a unified system possible or desirable?

  • International economic law and systemic risk

  • Public-private partnerships in international economic law

II. Paper and Panel Proposal Submission Papers:

The deadline for paper proposal submissions is June 24, 2016.

Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words and please indicate when you anticipate completion of the paper and whether the paper has been accepted for publication or has been published. If applicable, please indicate place of (anticipated) publication and date.

Please also provide a CV or resume, your current affiliation and whether you are a member of the IEcLIG.

Abstracts will be peer-reviewed and decisions will be issued on August 1, 2016.


We also invite panel proposals, particularly relating to the illustrative themes above. Please indicate, in no more than 500 words, the approach, anticipated content and format of the panel, proposed speakers with their affiliation and their field of expertise. The deadline for panel proposal submissions is June 24, 2016.

Please note that panel proposals may be combined or amended by the conference organizers to take into account the range of submissions. Invitations will be issued on August 1, 2016.

Papers will be due on September 4, 2016 for dissemination to other panelists, moderators and conference participants in advance of the event.

Materials should be sent to

III. Publication Opportunities

We are very pleased to announce that the Georgetown Journal of International Law is partnering with the International Economic Law Interest Group to publish an issue collecting papers from the conference, subject to selection by the Journal’s Editorial Board. Further information about the publication process will be conveyed to selected proposal authors in due course. Unless indicated otherwise in your proposal, we may share abstracts with Journal Editors.

Georgetown University is the home of the Journal of International Economic Law and members of the Editorial board will be in attendance at the conference. Selected presenters may be invited to submit their paper for consideration by the Journal.

IV. Conference Details

The conference will take place at Georgetown University Law Center located in Washington, DC (USA) on September 30-October 1, 2016. Washington, DC is easily accessible with domestic and international airlines.

For ASIL members, the registration fee is expected to be approximately $95 (which will cover some meals). For non-ASIL members, the fee will be $125. Students will enjoy discounted rates. We will be applying for CLE accreditation for a number of sessions.

Please understand that budget constraints prevent us from providing any travel or other financial assistance to conference participants.

This conference is co-sponsored by the Institute of International Economic Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

V. About the Interest Group

The International Economic Law Interest Group promotes academic interest, discussion, research and publication on subjects broadly related to the transnational movement and regulation of goods, services, persons and capital. International law topics include trade law, investment law, economic integration law, private law, business regulation, financial law, tax law, intellectual property law and the role of law in development. The group provides a forum for interdisciplinary exploration of public and private international and municipal law, and is particularly interested in promoting the work and interests of new practitioners and scholars in the field. Its activities also include sponsoring panels at the ASIL Meeting and co-sponsoring conferences with allied organizations.

Finally, we hope that even if you do not submit a paper or panel proposal, or even if your proposal is not selected, you will consider attending the Biennial conference. Past IEcLIG events have proven to offer remarkable opportunities to meet new and old friends and colleagues and to engage in highlevel intellectual exchange concerning important IEL topics. The 2016 Biennial will be no different.

We hope to see you in Washington in September!

Sonia E. Rolland ( and David Zaring (

Co-Chairs, International Economic Law Interest Group

Julie Maupin and Jarrod Wong

Co-Vice Chairs, International Economic Law Interest Group

Blocher, Gulati, & Helfer: Can Greece Be Expelled from the Eurozone? Toward a Default Rule on Expulsion from International Organizations

Joseph Blocher (Duke Univ. - Law), G. Mitu Gulati (Duke Univ. - Law), & Laurence R. Helfer (Duke Univ. - Law) have posted Can Greece Be Expelled from the Eurozone? Toward a Default Rule on Expulsion from International Organizations. Here's the abstract:
The ongoing European crisis has raised uncomfortable questions about the conditions under which treaty-based unions of nations like the EU or the EMU can legally expel a member—Greece being the most obvious candidate. The EU, for example, has rules governing the voluntary withdrawal of members, but says nothing about whether a member can be expelled. As a matter of international law, what does the silence mean? Put differently: What is the default rule regarding expulsions when a treaty says nothing about forced withdrawals? Is there an absolute bar on expulsion, as some have suggested? Conversely, is there an implicit right to expel? Or can material breaches of a treaty justify expulsion? And if fault is not required, must the expelled member state be compensated in some way?

Barelli: Seeking Justice in International Law: The Significance and Implications of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Mauro Barelli (City Univ. London - Law) has published Seeking Justice in International Law: The Significance and Implications of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Routledge 2016). Here's the abstract:
Today human rights represent a primary concern of the international legal system. The international community’s commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights, however, does not always produce the results hoped for by the advocates of a more justice-oriented system of international law. Indeed international law is often criticised for, inter alia, its enduring imperial character, incapacity to minimize inequalities and failure to take human suffering seriously. Against this background, the central question that this book aims to answer is whether the adoption of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples points to the existence of an international law that promises to provide valid responses to the demands for justice of disempowered and vulnerable groups. At one level, the book assesses whether international law has responded fairly and adequately to the human rights claims of indigenous peoples. At another level, it explores the relationship between this response and some distinctive features of the indigenous peoples’ struggle for justice, reflecting on the extent to which the latter have influenced and shaped the former.

Call for Papers: Rebalancing International Investment Agreements in Favour of Host States: The Case for an International Investment Court

A call for papers has been issued for a conference on "Rebalancing International Investment Agreements in Favour of Host States: The Case for an International Investment Court," to be held June 29, 2016, at the University of Bedfordshire. Here's the call:



University of Bedfordshire, School of Law and Finance
29 June 2016

Deadline for abstract submission: 1 June 2016


Change is an unavoidable feature of international law and one which has recently surfaced in the area of international investment law. This area has been in constant dynamic change since the inception of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which is commonly associated with arbitration under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Balancing the interests of both investors and host States, in a constantly changing materiae of international legal practice, is one of the discipline’s most fundamental challenges. Reform to our current system of ISDS surfaced during negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and United States (US).

Following an EU-wide public consultation in 2014, the proposal for the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP was overwhelmingly rejected with a majority of respondents raising concern over the disparity between national policy and commercial interests. In response, the EU Commission released proposals for an international investment court in November 2015. This proposal has stimulated intense academic debate especially on whether the new ISDS would achieve the desired balance.

This conference is intended to create an opportunity to reflect and debate together the role of ISDS and the proposal for an international investment court. The themes sought to be explored include, inter alia, the tension between national sovereignty and private commercial interests, the international investment court system in the shadow of State contracts with arbitral clauses, judges verses arbitrators and the investment court verses other dispute resolution mechanisms.


The conference is open to both junior and senior international investment law scholars and practitioners. The convenors especially encourage doctoral and post-doctoral researchers to apply. Papers will be selected based on quality, originality, innovation and capacity to provoke debate about policy and practice. The convenors will seek to publish the proceedings from the conference in (awaiting confirmation). A limited number of grants are available to support the travel costs of accepted speakers.


Submissions: Abstracts of 500 words should be submitted to

Selected applicants will be informed of their acceptance by 8 June 2016. The abstracts will be distributed to the other conference participants in advance to facilitate an in-depth discussion. For any enquiries please contact the conference convenors:

Dr Chrispas Nyombi (
Dr Andreas Yiannaros (

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Job Openings: PhD Positions (T.M.C. Asser Instituut)

The T.M.C. Asser Instituut invites applications for four PhD positions within the Gieskes Strijbis Fonds funded research project on "The Global City: Challenges, Trust and the Role of Law." The announcement is here.

Shaffer: Alternatives for Regulatory Governance Under TTIP: Building from the Past

Gregory Shaffer (Univ.y of California, Irvine - Law) has posted Alternatives for Regulatory Governance Under TTIP: Building from the Past (Columbia Journal of European Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This article evaluates the current negotiations under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) regarding regulatory cooperation from the perspective of over two decades of transatlantic effort. It examines six basic approaches for transatlantic regulatory cooperation and addresses the lessons to be learned from past efforts and their failures. It evaluates what can be done that would be new and could lead to regulatory learning and improvement in an economically interdependent world characterized by risk and uncertainty, while reducing the costs of duplicate, overlapping regulatory standards impeding trade.

New Issue: Journal of International Criminal Justice

The latest issue of the Journal of International Criminal Justice (Vol. 14, no. 2, May 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Special Issue: Slavery and the Limits of International Criminal Justice
    • James Cockayne, Nick Grono, & Kari Panaccione, Introduction
    • Harmen van der Wilt, Slavery Prosecutions in International Criminal Jurisdictions
    • Karen L. Corrie, Could the International Criminal Court Strategically Prosecute Modern Day Slavery?
    • Cécile Aptel, Child Slaves and Child Brides
    • Florian Jeßberger, Corporate Involvement in Slavery and Criminal Responsibility under International Law
    • Beate Andrees, Defending Rights, Securing Justice: The International Labour Organization’s Work on Forced Labour
    • Urmila Bhoola & Kari Panaccione, Slavery Crimes and the Mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery
    • Helen Duffy, Litigating Modern Day Slavery in Regional Courts: A Nascent Contribution
    • Nicole Siller, ‘Modern Slavery’: Does International Law Distinguish between Slavery, Enslavement and Trafficking?
    • David Tolbert & Laura A. Smith, Complementarity and the Investigation and Prosecution of Slavery Crimes
    • Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, Corporate Responsibility and Accountability for Modern Forms of Slavery
    • James Cockayne, The Anti-slavery Potential of International Criminal Justice

Conference: Private and Public International Law: Strengthening Connections

On June 24, 2016, Lincoln Law School will host a conference on "Private and Public International Law: Strengthening Connections." The program is here. Here's the idea:

Developing coherent and consistent discourses whilst avoiding fragmentation in public and private international law is amongst the challenges of these disciplines in present times. The conference is the final event of a two-year research project led by academics in Edinburgh and Lincoln with a view to highlight the convergence that exists between private and public International Law.

Through the presentation and discussion of papers exploring these connections, the one day conference will engage experienced private and public international lawyers from a wide range of jurisdictions as well as dynamic early-career academics. Focusing on engagement and ‘translation’ between the two sub-disciplines of international law, the speakers will map existing connections and explore further linkages between these disciplines across a range of interdisciplinary topics.

Topics covered include jurisdiction, State immunity, corporate social responsibility, arbitration, and trade in medical services.

Frieden: The Governance of International Finance

Jeffry Frieden (Harvard Univ. - Government) has published The Governance of International Finance (Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, pp. 33-48, 2016). Here's the abstract:
Contemporary international finance raises important questions about whether, and how, it might be overseen by national governments and international institutions. Inasmuch as global financial stability is a global public good, there is a normative case for governance structures to try to achieve this goal—whether they take the form of interstate cooperation or international institutions. This, however, does not mean that national states will necessarily be willing or able to work together to provide this global public good, as the incentives to free-ride are enormous. Nonetheless, the past 25 years do indicate that there has been some movement toward the provision of such global public goods as financial harmonization and a semblance of global lender-of-last-resort facilities. The record is spotty, but the trend appears to be in the direction of more global governance of global finance.

Cottrell: The Evolution and Legitimacy of International Security Institutions

M. Patrick Cottrell (Linfield College - Political Science) has published The Evolution and Legitimacy of International Security Institutions (Cambridge Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:
International institutions constitute the basis of global order. As they struggle to accommodate shifts in power and emerging threats, their legitimacy - their political authority and right to govern - often comes under fire, at times fuelling perceptions of crisis. Yet scholars seldom ask why some institutions are replaced while others are not. Blending theory with history, M. Patrick Cottrell examines some of the world's landmark security institutions, arguing that the possibility of replacement hinges on the sources of institutional legitimacy and the nature and timing of the challenges to it. The analysis not only reveals different pathways to replacement, but also offers a window into the future, including a potential dark side of too much legitimacy. Indeed, as global society becomes ever more dynamic, the fault lines of conflict with the most significant implications for order will not occur over territory, but rather over the legitimacy of international institutions.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

New Issue: Global Policy

The latest issue of Global Policy (Vol. 7, no. 2, May 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Research Articles
    • Thomas G. Weiss, Ethical Quandaries in War Zones, When Mass Atrocity Prevention Fails
    • Mary Kaldor, How Peace Agreements Undermine the Rule of Law in New War Settings
    • Rogelio Madrueño-Aguilar, Human Security and the New Global Threats: Discourse, Taxonomy and Implications
    • Todd Sandler & Justin George, Military Expenditure Trends for 1960–2014 and What They Reveal
    • Moira V. Faul, Networks and Power: Why Networks are Hierarchical Not Flat and What Can Be Done About It
    • Philip Andrews-Speed & Xunpeng Shi, What Role Can the G20 Play in Global Energy Governance? Implications for China's Presidency
    • Juliet Johnson & Seçkin Köstem, Frustrated Leadership: Russia's Economic Alternative to the West
    • Nelli Babayan, A Global Trend EU-style: Democracy Promotion in ‘Fragile’ and Conflict-Affected South Caucasus
    • Vincenzo Bavoso, Financial Innovation, Derivatives and the UK and US Interest Rate Swap Scandals: Drawing New Boundaries for the Regulation of Financial Innovation
  • Survey Articles
    • David Held, Climate Change, Migration and the Cosmopolitan Dilemma
    • Rorden Wilkinson, Erin Hannah & James Scott, The WTO in Nairobi: The Demise of the Doha Development Agenda and the Future of the Multilateral Trading System
  • Special Section Articles
    • Law and Negotiation in Conflict
    • Catherine Turner, Editorial Comment: Law and Negotiation in Conflict: Theory, Policy and Practice
    • Martin Wählisch, Normative Limits of Peace Negotiations: Questions, Guidance and Prospects
    • Rashida Manjoo, Women, Peace and Security – Negotiating in Women's Best Interests
    • Aoife O'Donoghue, How Does International Law Condition Responses to Conflict and Negotiation?
    • Christopher K. Lamont & Hannah Pannwitz, Transitional Justice as Elite Justice? Compromise Justice and Transition in Tunisia
    • Aisling Swaine, Law and Negotiation: A Role for a Transformative Approach?
  • Practitioner Commentaries
    • Shintaro Hamanaka, Insights to Great Powers' Desire to Establish Institutions: Comparison of ADB, AMF, AMRO and AIIB
    • Jindra Cekan, How to Foster Sustainability
    • Jean-Marc Coicaud, Administering and Governing with Technology: The Question of Information Communication Technology and E-Governance

Erne: Das Bestimmtheitsgebot im nationalen und internationalen Strafrecht am Beispiel des Straftatbestands der Verfolgung

Sarah Erne has published Das Bestimmtheitsgebot im nationalen und internationalen Strafrecht am Beispiel des Straftatbestands der Verfolgung (Nomos 2016). Here's the abstract:

Strafnormen sollen genau festlegen, welches Verhalten verboten ist. Sarah Erne untersucht die Begründung und die Reichweite des Gebots der Bestimmtheit von Strafnormen im deutschen Recht und im Völkerstrafrecht. Es wird herausgearbeitet, dass man von der Geltung des Bestimmtheitsgrundsatzes im Völkerstrafrecht erst nach 1945 sprechen kann. Inzwischen ist das Bestimmtheitsgebot in den Menschenrechten verankert und daher in seinem Kerngehalt für nationale Rechtsordnungen nicht mehr disponibel. Die Reichweite des Bestimmtheitsgebots ist nicht leicht zu erfassen; der Grundsatz ist letztlich selbst inhaltlich unbestimmt.

Beispielhaft für verschiedene andere völkerrechtlich geprägte Straftatbestände untersucht Sarah Erne den Tatbestand des Menschlichkeitsverbrechens der Verfolgung im deutschen Recht sowie im Völkerstrafrecht; sie kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass dieser Tatbestand dem Bestimmtheitsgebot nicht gerecht wird.

Goertz, Diehl, & Balas: The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System

Gary Goertz (Univ. of Notre Dame - Political Science), Paul F. Diehl (Univ. of Texas, Dallas), & Alexandru Balas (State Univ. of New York, Cortland - Clark Center for International Education) have published The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:
The Puzzle of Peace moves beyond defining peace as the absence of war and develops a broader conceptualization and explanation for the increasing peacefulness of the international system. The authors track the rise of peace as a new phenomenon in international history starting after 1945. International peace has increased because international society has developed a set of norms dealing with territorial conflict, by far the greatest source of international war over previous centuries. These norms prohibit the use of military force in resolving territorial disputes and acquiring territory, thereby promoting border stability. This includes the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by military means as well as attempts by secessionist groups to form states through military force. International norms for managing international conflict have been accompanied by increased mediation and adjudication as means of managing existing territorial conflicts.

New Issue: International Security

The latest issue of International Security (Vol. 40, no. 4, Spring 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion
  • Nina Silove, The Pivot before the Pivot: U.S. Strategy to Preserve the Power Balance in Asia
  • Reyko Huang, Rebel Diplomacy in Civil War
  • Daniel Byman, Understanding the Islamic State—A Review Essay
  • Correspondence
    • Christopher Clary, Gaurav Kampani, & Jaganath Sankaran, Battling over Pakistan's Battlefield Nuclear Weapons
    • Leif-Eric Easley, Patricia Kim, & Charles L. Glaser, Grand Bargain or Bad Idea? U.S. Relations with China and Taiwan

Conference: Industry Associations and Transnational Governance

On June 10, 2016, the International Organizations Interest Group of the American Society for International Law, the Rutgers Law School Center for Corporate Law and Governance, and the Rutgers Institute for Professional Education will hold a conference on "Industry Associations and Transnational Governance." The program is here. Here's the idea:
This day-long conference brings together practitioners and scholars to discuss the role of industry (or trade) associations in transnational governance. The aim is to gain deeper understanding of how trade associations create and administer standards and rules for governing particular industries (e.g. pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, financial products) and to shed light on the dynamic between industry associations and the formal law-making bodies of governments and international organizations. Together we will explore the processes through which associations engage in rule-making and standard setting for their members and industries, both within and across borders, and reflect on the opportunities and challenges they may encounter in carrying out these governance functions.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Rhoads: Taking Sides in Peacekeeping: Impartiality and the Future of the United Nations

Emily Paddon Rhoads (Swarthmore College - Political Science) has published Taking Sides in Peacekeeping: Impartiality and the Future of the United Nations (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

United Nations peacekeeping has undergone radical transformation in the new millennium. Where it once was limited in scope and based firmly on consent of all parties, contemporary operations are now charged with penalizing spoilers of peace and protecting civilians from peril. Despite its more aggressive posture, practitioners and academics continue to affirm the vital importance of impartiality whilst stating that it no longer means what it once did. Taking Sides in Peacekeeping explores this transformation and its implications, in what is the first conceptual and empirical study of impartiality in UN peacekeeping.

The book challenges dominant scholarly approaches that conceive of norms as linear and static, conceptualizing impartiality as a 'composite' norm, one that is not free-standing but an aggregate of other principles-each of which can change and is open to contestation. Drawing on a large body of primary evidence, it uses the composite norm to trace the evolution of impartiality, and to illuminate the macro-level politics surrounding its institutionalization at the UN, as well as the micro-level politics surrounding its implementation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, site of the largest and costliest peacekeeping mission in UN history.

Taking Sides in Peacekeeping reveals that, despite a veneer of consensus, impartiality is in fact highly contested. As the collection of principles it refers to has expanded to include human rights and civilian protection, deep disagreements have arisen over what keeping peace impartially actually means. Beyond the semantics, the book shows how this contestation, together with the varying expectations and incentives created by the norm, has resulted in perverse and unintended consequences that have politicized peacekeeping and, in some cases, effectively converted UN forces into one warring party among many. Taking Sides in Peacekeeping assesses the implications of this radical transformation for the future of peacekeeping and for the UN's role as guarantor of international peace and security.

Meyers: Victims' Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights

Diana Tietjens Meyers (Univ. of Connecticut - Philosophy) has published Victims' Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Victim's Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights takes on a set of questions suggested by the worldwide persistence of human rights abuse and the prevalence of victims' stories in human rights campaigns, truth commissions, and international criminal tribunals: What conceptions of victims are presumed in contemporary human rights discourse? How do conventional narrative templates fail victims of human rights abuse and resist raising novel human rights issues? What is empathy, and how can victims frame their stories to overcome empathetic obstacles and promote commitment to human rights? How can victims' stories be used ethically in the service of human rights?

The book addresses these concerns by analyzing the rhetorical resources for and constraints on victims' ability to articulate their stories and by clarifying how their stories can contribute to enlarged understandings of human rights protections and deepened commitments to realizing human rights. It theorizes the normative content that victims' stories can convey and the bearing of that normative content on human rights. Throughout the book, published victims' stories-including stories of torture, slavery, genocide, rape in wartime, and child soldiering-are analyzed in conjunction with philosophical arguments. This book mobilizes philosophical theory to illuminate victims' stories and appeals to victims' stories to enrich the philosophy of human rights.

Call for Papers: Latin American Network of International Law’s Second Conference (RELAREDI 2016)

The Pontificia Catholic University of Peru, with the support of the Mexican Yearbook of International Law, and the Latin American Network of International Law, has issued a call for papers for the Latin American Network of International Law’s Second Conference (RELAREDI 2016), to be held October 27-28, 2016, in Lima. Here's the call:

Call for Papers

The Latin American Network of International Law Journals, Conference II (RELAREDI 2016)

Lima, Peru, October 27 and 28, 2016

The Pontificia Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) with the support of the Mexican International Law Yearbook (AMDI) and the Latin American Network of International Law (RELAREDI) calls for the submission of papers for the Latin American Network of International Law’s second Conference (RELAREDI 2016) to be held in Lima, Peru on Thursday, October 27 and Friday, October 28, 2016.

The Latin American Network of International Law (RELAREDI) aims to establish a mechanism for dialogue and co-operation between journals and publications that specialise in international issues, and the region’s practitioners and academics who seek to publish their work in the region. RELAREDI seeks to position itself at the heart of academic reflection and the diffusion of work on International Law undertaken in the region and beyond.

RELAREDI also seeks to promote the inclusion of International Law issues in existing journals and support nascent publications in the field, recognising doctrine as an auxiliary means for the determination of the international rule of law, in accordance with Article 38 of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, to promote the production of content from Latin America that responds to the region’s problems and concerns from its own, critical viewpoint.

Dates for this call for papers:

Opens: April, 2016.

Closes: July 1, 2016.

Results announced: July 25, 2016.

The organisation will assume neither transport costs nor travel expenses, however an invitation letter will be delivered to the speaker in order for him or her to request support from their university or institution.

The candidate must indicate clearly whether he or she wishes to participate and send the proposal to María Ángela Sasaki Otani, mail: and Evelyn Téllez Carvajal, mail:

Requirements: Presentation summary (one page maximum) and a brief summary of your resume (one page maximum)

Open to: Professionals, academics and graduate students in any area of International Law.

Tentative topics: Terrorism, Information Technology, Human Rights, Environment, History of Law, Investment, Regional Integration, TTP, Intellectual Property and the Jurisprudence of International Courts on Latin American issues, among others.

New Issue: Review of International Organizations

The latest issue of the Review of International Organizations (Vol. 11, no. 2, June 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Special Issue: Developing countries and international organizations
    • John W. McArthur & Eric Werker, Developing countries and international organizations: Introduction to the special issue
    • Bernhard Zangl, Frederick Heußner, Andreas Kruck, & Xenia Lanzendörfer, Imperfect adaptation: how the WTO and the IMF adjust to shifting power distributions among their members
    • Felix Anderl, The myth of the local
    • Helen V. Milner, Daniel L. Nielson, & Michael G. Findley, Citizen preferences and public goods: comparing preferences for foreign aid and government programs in Uganda
    • Inken von Borzyskowski, Resisting democracy assistance: Who seeks and receives technical election assistance?

Monday, May 16, 2016

Saul: Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law

Ben Saul (Univ. of Sydney - Law) has posted Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law (in Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law, Ben Saul & Dapo Akande eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This paper focuses on three key legal issues of particular relevance and specificity to terrorism in armed conflict governed by international humanitarian law (IHL). First, it examines IHL’s specific, narrow prohibitions on ‘terrorism’ in armed conflict and the connected war crime of intending to spread terror amongst a civilian population, which is distinct from peacetime legal notions of terrorism. The war crimes jurisprudence has been developed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and has implications for criminal jurisdiction under customary IHL and before the International Criminal Court. Secondly, the paper analyses the varied and complicated relationships between IHL and different international counter-terrorism law (‘CTL’) norms and instruments. Depending on the norm and context, CTL can apply, not apply, or partially apply in armed conflict, and there is no general international rule determining whether CTL or IHL is the more special law (lex specialis). Often CTL complements and extends IHL’s focus on preventing and criminalising attacks on civilians. Further, CTL often does not directly conflict with IHL. However, some aspects of CTL interfere with IHL’s delicate balance between humanitarian protection and military necessity, by ‘taking sides’, undermining the equality of the parties, and ultimately reducing incentives for non-state armed groups to comply with IHL. Thirdly, this paper concludes by exploring the related, adverse effects of CTL on humanitarian relief operations in armed conflict. National implementation of CTL has variously chilled, restricted, prohibited and even criminalised humanitarian engagement by external actors with armed ‘terrorist’ groups. These measures have both inhibited effective humanitarian assistance to vulnerable civilian populations and undermined the confidence of non-state armed groups in humanitarian cooperation with the international community.

New Issue: Human Rights Quarterly

The latest issue of the Human Rights Quarterly (Vol. 38, no. 2, May 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Kora Andrieu, Confronting the Dictatorial Past in Tunisia: Human Rights and the Politics of Victimhood in Transitional Justice Discourses Since 2011
  • Turkuler Isiksel, The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Man-Made: Corporations and Human Rights
  • Christof Heyns, Human Rights and the use of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) During Domestic Law Enforcement
  • José Juan Vázquez & Sonia Panadero, Chronicity and Pseudo Inheritance of Social Exclusion: Differences According to the Poverty of the Family of Origin Among Trash Pickers in León, Nicaragua
  • Pamela G. Poon, Kiely Houston, Abina Shrestha, Rajin Rayamajhi, Lily Thapa, & Pamela J. Surkan, Nepali Widows’ Access to Legal Entitlements: A Human Rights Issue
  • Sarita Cargas, Questioning Samuel Moyn’s Revisionist History of Human Rights
  • David L. Sloss, How International Human Rights Transformed the US Constitution
  • Jody Sarich, Michele Olivier, & Kevin Bales, Forced Marriage, Slavery, and Plural Legal Systems: An African Example
  • David L. Richards, The Myth of Information Effects in Human Rights Data: Response to Ann Marie Clark and Kathryn Sikkink
  • Ann Marie Clark & Kathryn Sikkink, Response to David L. Richards

Wu: The 'China, Inc.' Challenge to Global Trade Governance

Mark Wu (Harvard Univ. - Law) has posted The 'China, Inc.' Challenge to Global Trade Governance (Harvard International Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

In the past decade, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has adjudicated over forty disputes involving China and other powerful economies. These cases are often trumpeted as a sign of the enduring strength of the trade regime and the efficacy of international law in managing geopolitical tensions associated with China’s rise. This Article suggests that this positive assessment obfuscates dangers lurking on the horizon. It explains why the rise of China presents a major challenge to the multilateral trade regime. At the heart of this challenge is the fact that China’s economic structure is sui generis—having evolved in a manner largely unforeseen by those negotiating WTO treaty law.

As a result, the WTO is equipped to deal effectively with only a limited range of disputes—those in which Chinese policies largely resemble elements of other alternative economic structures. Outside of this set of issues, the WTO faces two very different but equally serious challenges. The first is reinterpreting certain legal concepts to adapt and fit an unforeseen Chinese context. The second is deciding whether to expand the scope of its legal rules to accommodate issues that currently fall outside its jurisdiction. This Article explores options for meeting these challenges. It suggests that the most likely outcome is one in which China’s rise will exacerbate the diminishing centrality of WTO law for global trade governance.

Otomo: Unconditional Life: The Postwar International Law Settlement

Yoriko Otomo (SOAS Univ. of London - Law) has published Unconditional Life: The Postwar International Law Settlement (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Drawing on philosophy, history, and critical theory, Unconditional Life introduces a new perspective on the significance of post-war international law developments. The book examines the public discourse regarding technological risk in World War II texts of unconditional surrender, in the World Trade Organisation's EC-Biotech dispute, and in the International Court of Justices' Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion. The volume describes international law in terms of its management of, and relation to, the risks associated with technological innovation in war and in trade. It proposes that international law, too, is itself a kind of technology: one intended to manage the material and existential risks inherent in the creation of a new international, postcolonial, political community emerging out of the Second World War. Members of this community are imagined to possess a universal quality: humanness, which itself is underscored by a power of invention. Yoriko Otomo demonstrates how international lawyers' inability to adjudicate questions of large-scale technological risk is due to the competing and intractable claims of international law.

Offering a feminist analysis of the political economy that has created this crisis of governance, the book provides a way of understanding the structural inequities that will need to be addressed if international law is to remain a relevant forum for the adjudication of war and trade into the 21st century.

Call for Papers: Conservation of Marine Living Resources in the Polar Regions: Science, Politics and Law

A call for papers has been issued for a conference on "Conservation of Marine Living Resources in the Polar Regions: Science, Politics and Law," to be held March 25-26, 2017, at Wuhan University. Here's the call:

Conservation of Marine Living Resources in the Polar Regions: Science, Politics and Law

25-26 March 2017, Wuhan University, China

Call for Papers

The Collaborative Innovation Centre for Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights (CICTSMR), the Research Institute of Environmental Law (RIEL), Wuhan University, China and the School of Law, University of New England, Australia are pleased to announce the call for papers for the “Conservation of Marine Living Resources in the Polar Regions: Science, Politics and Law” Conference.


The Polar Regions are ‘Final Frontiers’ (Freestone 2015) for human beings. While the world’s ocean is facing extreme pressure from anthropogenic activities, the Polar Regions are still relatively pristine. Nevertheless, marine ecosystems in the Polar Regions are experiencing significant changes. There is an urgent need for an effective governance framework for marine living resources in the Polar Region to avoid a ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hardin 1968). On the other hand, there is hope that a well-developed governance structure in the Polar Regions could provide lessons for sustainable management of marine living resources in other parts of the world.

Climate change and the need for the conservation of marine biodiversity have brought much attention to the Polar Regions. At the international level, the United Nations General Assembly is working on the development of an international legally-binding instrument under the Law of the Sea Convention for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. At the same time, discussions and debates concerning the establishment of marine protected areas in Antarctica have been going on for years within the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). In the Arctic, two Meetings on High Sea Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean were held in Washington D.C, United States. China, the European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea were all invited to engage within a broader process toward the prevention of unregulated commercial fishing in the central Arctic Ocean.

Against this backdrop, the Conference would bring together scholars from relevant disciplines such as international law, international relations, political science and marine biology as well as NGOs, and representatives from governments and international organizations to discuss how to achieve effective conservation of marine living resources in the Polar Regions at the national, regional and international level. Interactions between science, politics and law are particularly examined. The Conference also provides a unique opportunity for international scholars to discuss China’s role in the Polar Regions with their Chinese peers.

Call for Abstracts

Abstracts of no more than 400 words should be emailed to Dr Nengye Liu ( by 15 September 2016. All abstracts will be peer-reviewed by an international panel of reviewers. Selected speakers will be notified by 15 November 2016. It is anticipated that an edited book of papers or a special issue of journal articles from the Conference would be published in 2018.

Confirmed Speakers

Apart from Dr Nengye Liu and Professor Dr Tianbao Qin, who will be leading academic discussions, a number of speakers have confirmed their availability to speak at the Conference. Confirmed speakers include:

  • Professor Tore Henriksen, Director, K.G.Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea, University of Tromsø/the Arctic University of Norway
  • Professor Benjamin Richardson, Professor of Environmental Law, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies/Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania
  • Professor David VanderZwaag, Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Ocean Law and Governance, Marine & Environmental Law Institute, Schulich School of Law, University of Dalhousie
  • Dr Keith Reid, Science Manager, Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
  • Dr Alexander Shestakov, Director, Global Arctic Programme, WWF 
  • Dr Tony Press, Former Director, Australian Antarctic Division / Former CEO, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre
  • Dr Yoshinobu Takei, Legal Officer, United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (tbc)

Sunday, May 15, 2016

New Issue: Chinese Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Chinese Journal of International Law (Vol. 15, no. 1, March 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Editorial Comments
    • Sufian Jusoh, A Dialogue between UN and AALCO Experts on Identification of Customary International Law
    • Michael Wood, The present position within the ILC on the topic “Identification of customary international law”: in partial response to Sienho Yee, Report on the ILC Project on “Identification of Customary International Law”
    • Stephen Mathias, The Work of the International Law Commission on Identification of Customary International Law: A View from the Perspective of the Office of Legal Affairs
    • Sienho Yee, A Reply to Sir Michael Wood's Response to AALCOIEG's Work and My Report on the ILC Project on Identification of Customary International Law
    • Rahmat Mohamad, Some Reflections on the International Law Commission Topic “Identification of Customary International Law”
  • Articles
    • Rein Müllerson, Ideology, Geopolitics and International Law
    • Henan Hu, The Doctrine of Occupation: An Analysis of Its Invalidity under the Framework of International Legal Positivism
    • Carsten Stahn, Between Constructive Engagement, Collusion and Critical Distance: The ICRC and the Development of International Criminal Law
    • Tu Guangjian & Wang Hongyan, Resolution of Cross-border Securities Disputes under the Scheme of Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect: An Exploration on the Applicable Law
  • Comment
    • Christine Gray, The 2015 Report on Uniting Our Strengths for Peace: a New Framework for UN Peacekeeping?

New Issue: African Journal of International and Comparative Law

The latest issue of the African Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 24, no. 2, May 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Luci Kartar-Hyett, Simply Unwilling? Is Patriarchy Preventing the Prosecution of Crimes against Women in African States: A Kenyan and Ugandan Perspective
  • Mtendeweka Mhango & Ntombizozuko Dyani-Mhango, Reform of the Death Benefit Provisions in Lesotho's Public Sector Pension Fund: Lessons from South Africa and Swaziland
  • Jeremy Sarkin, A Critique of the Decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Permitting the Demolition of the SADC Tribunal: Politics versus Economics and Human Rights
  • Réne Huyser & Paul Smit, Benchmarking Social Justice Allegiance of Dismissal Protections among the EE5 Countries
  • Nico Steytler, Domesticating the Leviathan: Constitutionalism and Federalism in Africa
  • Sharmin Tania & Jackbeth K. Mapulanga-Hulston, Examining the Synergy between the Right to Food and Agricultural Trade Policies