Saturday, October 22, 2016

New Issue: Chinese Journal of Global Governance

The latest issue of the Chinese Journal of Global Governance (Vol. 2, no. 2, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Dirk Messner, Alejandro Guarin & Daniel Haun, Putting Behavior into International Cooperation
  • Weihuan Zhou & Andrew Percival, Panel Report on EU —Biodiesel: A Glass Half Full?—Implications for the Rising Issue of “Particular Market Situation”
  • Shuai Guo, A Story of Convergence of IPR Regimes: The IPR Chapter in the China-Korea Free Trade Agreement

Friday, October 21, 2016

New Issue: International Journal of Transitional Justice

The latest issue of the International Journal of Transitional Justice (Vol. 10, no. 3, November 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Editorial Note
    • Hugo van der Merwe & M. Brinton Lykes, Transitional Justice Processes as Teachable Moments
  • Articles
    • Andrea Durbach, Towards Reparative Transformation: Revisiting the Impact of Violence against Women in a Post-TRC South Africa
    • Michael Broache, Irrelevance, Instigation and Prevention: The Mixed Effects of International Criminal Court Prosecutions on Atrocities in the CNDP/M23 Case
    • Aoife Duffy, Searching for Accountability: British-Controlled Detention in Southeast Iraq, 2003–2008
    • Mijke de Waardt, Naming and Shaming Victims: The Semantics of Victimhood
    • Arnaud Kurze, #WarCrimes #PostConflictJustice #Balkans: Youth, Performance Activism and the Politics of Memory
    • Eliza Garnsey, Rewinding and Unwinding: Art and Justice in Times of Political Transition
    • Louise Mallinder & Catherine O’Rourke, Databases of Transitional Justice Mechanisms and Contexts: Comparing Research Purposes and Design
  • Notes from the Field
    • Stef Vandeginste, Museveni, Burundi and the Perversity of Immunité Provisoire
    • Yasmine Ahmed, Sara Duddy, Claire Hackett, Patricia Lundy, Mary McCallan, Gemma McKeown, Andrée Murphy, Catherine O'Rourke, Emma Patterson-Bennet, Leah Wing, & Philipp Schulz, Developing Gender Principles for Dealing with the Legacy of the Past
  • Review Essay
    • Sarah Williams, Hybrid Tribunals: A Time for Reflection

Hakimi & Cogan: A Role for the Security Council on Defensive Force?

Over at EJIL: Talk!, Monica Hakimi (Univ. of Michigan - Law) and I have a post on A Role for the Security Council on Defensive Force?

Deprez: L'applicabilité des droits humains à l'action de la Cour pénale internationale

Christophe Deprez (Université de Liège) has published L'applicabilité des droits humains à l'action de la Cour pénale internationale (Bruylant 2016). Here's the abstract:

Entre instrument de protection des libertés fondamentales et menace à l’égard des mêmes libertés, l’activité pénale est un phénomène cerné de paradoxes. Les règles de protection des droits humains ont notamment pour ambition de contenir ces paradoxes : en encadrant le pouvoir de contrainte que l’autorité répressive est susceptible d’exercer sur les individus, ces normes essentielles doivent permettre de garantir une justice pénale qui demeure fidèle aux principes qu’elle entend défendre.

Mais, dès lors que le droit international des droits humains a été pensé et conçu pour circonscrire l’autorité des États, qu’en reste-t-il lorsqu’on cherche à l’appliquer à la Cour pénale internationale ? Dans quelle mesure et sur la base de quel(s) fondement(s) juridique(s) cet acteur répressif d’un genre nouveau est-il tenu au respect de règles auxquelles il n’a pas expressément souscrit ? Les spécificités de la justice pénale internationale – telles que la gravité des crimes ayant favorisé son émergence – réclament-elles une adaptation du niveau de protection accordé aux suspects et accusés internationaux ?

Cet ouvrage vise à apporter un éclairage sur ces questions et, ainsi, à cerner les contours de l’applicabilité des droits humains à l’action de la Cour pénale internationale.

Priemel: The Betrayal: The Nuremberg Trials and German Divergence

Kim Christian Priemel (Univ. of Oslo - History) has published The Betrayal: The Nuremberg Trials and German Divergence (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:
At the end of World War II the Allies faced a threefold challenge: how to punish perpetrators of appalling crimes for which the categories of 'genocide' and 'crimes against humanity' had to be coined; how to explain that these had been committed by Germany, of all nations; and how to reform Germans. The Allied answer to this conundrum was the application of historical reasoning to legal procedure. In the thirteen Nuremberg trials held between 1945 and 1949, and in corresponding cases elsewhere, a concerted effort was made to punish key perpetrators while at the same time providing a complex analysis of the Nazi state and German history. Building on a long debate about Germany's divergence from a presumed Western path of development, Allied prosecutors sketched a historical trajectory which had led Germany to betray the Western model. Historical reasoning both accounted for the moral breakdown of a 'civilised' nation and rendered plausible arguments that this had indeed been a collective failure rather than one of a small criminal clique. The prosecutors therefore carefully laid out how institutions such as private enterprise, academic science, the military, or bureaucracy, which looked ostensibly similar to their opposite numbers in the Allied nations, had been corrupted in Germany even before Hitler's rise to power. While the argument, depending on individual protagonists, subject matters, and contexts, met with uneven success in court, it offered a final twist which was of obvious appeal in the Cold War to come: if Germany had lost its way, it could still be brought back into the Western fold. The first comprehensive study of the Nuremberg trials, The Betrayal thus also explores how history underpins transitional trials as we encounter them in today's courtrooms from Arusha to The Hague.

Novic: The Concept of Cultural Genocide: An International Law Perspective

Elisa Novic (Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law) has published The Concept of Cultural Genocide: An International Law Perspective (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Cultural genocide is the systematic destruction of traditions, values, language, and other elements that make one group of people distinct from another. Cultural genocide remains a recurrent topic, appearing not only in the form of wide-ranging claims about the commission of cultural genocide in diverse contexts but also in the legal sphere, as exemplified by the discussions before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and also the drafting of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These discussions have, however, displayed the lack of a uniform understanding of the concept of cultural genocide and thus of the role that international law is expected to fulfil in this regard.

The Concept of Cultural Genocide: An International Law Perspective details how international law has approached the core idea underlying the concept of cultural genocide and how this framework can be strengthened and fostered. It traces developments from the early conceptualisation of cultural genocide to the contemporary question of its reparation. Through this journey, the book discusses the evolution of various branches of international law in relation to both cultural protection and cultural destruction in light of a number of legal cases in which either the concept of cultural genocide or the idea of cultural destruction has been discussed. Such cases include the destruction of cultural and religious heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the forced removals of Aboriginal children in Australia and Canada, and the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in relation to Indigenous and tribal groups' cultural destruction.

Thirlway: The International Court of Justice

Hugh Thirlway (formerly, Principal Legal Secretary, International Court of Justice) has published The International Court of Justice (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

In recent years States have made more and more extensive use of the International Court of Justice for the judicial settlement of disputes. Despite being declared by the Court's Statute to have no binding force for States other than the parties to the case, its decisions have come to constitute a body of jurisprudence that is frequently invoked in other disputes, in international negotiation, and in academic writing.

This jurisprudence, covering a wide range of aspects of international law, is the subject of considerable ongoing academic examination; it needs however to be seen against the background, and in the light, of the Court's structure, jurisdiction and operation, and the principles applied in these domains. The purpose of this book is thus to provide an accessible and comprehensive study of this aspect of the Court, and in particular of its procedure, written by a scholar who has had unique opportunities of close observation of the Court in action. This distillation of direct experience and expertise makes it essential reading for all those who study, teach or practise international law.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Meyer: Saving the Political Consensus in Favor of Free Trade

Timothy Meyer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) has posted Saving the Political Consensus in Favor of Free Trade (Vanderbilt Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

2016 is the year that the political consensus in favor liberalized international trade collapsed. Across the world, voters’ belief that international trade agreements lead to economic inequality threatens to derail ratification of the next generation of trade agreements and undo the substantial gains made under existing arrangements. In the United States, both presidential candidates in this fall’s election have denounced the most recent effort to liberalize trade rules, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The United Kingdom voted to pull out of the European Union, one of the world’s largest and most important free trade zones. Europe’s top trade negotiator has declared European trade policy “close to death” after Germany and France held up ratification of a free trade agreement with Canada.

In the face of this onslaught, trade’s defenders have run out of ideas. They point out that trade makes nations wealthier; that trade plays a minor role in creating economic inequality when compared with technological innovation; and that domestic policies unconnected to trade rules can more efficiently address economic inequality, and can do so without the need for international obligations that might be construed as limiting national sovereignty in matters of social policy. These views are right as a matter of economics. But politicians make trade rules, not economists. Right or wrong, voters’ belief that liberalizing trade leads to economic inequality creates a political constraint on trade liberalization.

This Essay proposes a way to save the political consensus in favor of free trade. In order to preserve and extend the international trade regime and the extraordinary gains it has produced since the end of World War II, the next generation of preferential trade agreements should include international obligations binding on developed countries to address domestic economic inequality. In other words, trade agreements must include obligations to redistribute the gains from trade within countries. This approach differs dramatically from that taken in existing trade agreements. Since the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), trade agreements have tried to protect those who stand to lose from free trade – principally labor interests – by including labor provisions in trade agreements. These provisions are outward-looking, however. They seek to raise labor and environmental standards in developing countries (e.g., Mexico) in order to limit the loss of jobs in developed countries (e.g., the United States). Critics of trade agreements have inadvertently bought into this orientation. They argue for removing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) from trade agreements. But removing ISDS does nothing to help those suffering economically in developed countries, and it hurts developed countries’ businesses’ when they operate overseas. The removal of ISDS thus would be both a major concession to trade’s critics and yet not one that advances their core objective of ensuring that trade agreements advance economic equality.

To be sure, governments do have domestic programs to help those negatively impacted by liberalized trade rules. Trade adjustment assistance (TAA) programs offer financial assistance to those who lose their jobs due to international trade. But recent studies in the United States suggest that TAA is ineffective. Moreover, unlike trade agreements, which are in force indefinitely, TAA expires every few years unless Congress reauthorizes it – a fight each time.

To put it bluntly, these approaches have failed. They have failed to staunch the loss of jobs and they have failed to persuade voters in developed countries that international trade is not a primary cause of economic inequality. An “Economic Development” chapter in future preferential trade agreements would commit developed countries to addressing their own economic inequality problems at home. An Economic Development chapter would create international obligations for member states to establish fiscal programs, such as educational and infrastructure spending, designed to boost economic opportunity for those left behind by growing inequality. These spending obligations would be indexed, so that they would rise and fall with the economic losses attributable to trade agreements. If such losses do not occur or taper off, nations’ spending commitments would naturally sunset.

These obligations would be enforced through reporting and monitoring requirements, similar to human rights treaties, and dispute settlement provisions that could lead to a loss of market access, the norm in trade agreements. Tying measures designed to address economic inequality directly into trade agreements would create political coalitions in favor of continuing efforts to liberalize trade. Those who do not benefit from trade agreements could still support them as a way to obtain greater domestic benefits. And those who benefit most from the liberalized trade rules could support redistribution as the price of further globalization. Trade agreements would create a commitment device allowing those who gain from trade to commit in advance to provide those who do not with a share of the spoils.

Conference: L’exécution des décisions juridictionnelles internationales

Today and tomorrow, October 20-21, 2016, the Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales at the Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas is hosting a conference on "L’exécution des décisions juridictionnelles internationales." The program is here. Here's the idea:
Si d’importants travaux ont été consacrés à l’exécution des arrêts et jugements d’une juridiction internationale particulière, au premier chef la Cour internationale de Justice, aucune étude de la question de l’exécution de leurs décisions n’a jusqu’à aujourd’hui été entreprise pour l’ensemble de ces juridictions, alors même que leur multiplication dans les domaines les plus variés du droit international en renouvelle considérablement l’importance et l’intérêt, tant dans l’ordre juridique international que dans les ordres juridiques nationaux. C’est à cet aspect délaissé du droit du contentieux international que s’attache le présent colloque de l’IHEI, qui réunit universitaires et praticiens, français et étrangers, pour en décliner les différentes facettes dans la matière du contentieux international général et dans celles de la protection des droits de l’homme, des échanges et de la concurrence, et de l’arbitrage transnational.

Rössler: Politische Freiheit im Völkerrecht

Julian Rössler has published Politische Freiheit im Völkerrecht (Mohr Siebeck 2016). Here's the abstract:
Der Internationale Pakt für politische und bürgerliche Rechte ist der wichtigste völkerrechtliche Vertrag zur Garantie universeller Menschenrechte und damit für die politische Betätigungsfreiheit. Politische Parteien nehmen für die Verwirklichung dieser Freiheit eine entscheidende Rolle ein, da sie individuelle Meinungen in staatliche Entscheidungen hineintragen können. Unter Bezugnahme auf die Vereinigungsfreiheit, das Wahlrecht, das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker und den Minderheitenschutz zeigt Julian Rössler, dass die Parteienfreiheit auf universeller Ebene umfassend gewährleistet wird. Die völkerrechtliche Parteienfreiheit ist als Garant für eine Pluralität von Parteien und damit auch für politische Meinungsvielfalt in den Vertragsstaaten zu verstehen. Der Zivilpakt ist Grundlage für eine internationale Gemeinschaft von pluralistisch demokratischen Staaten.

New Issue: Diritti umani e diritto internazionale

The latest issue of Diritti umani e diritto internazionale (Vol. 10, no. 2, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, Benedetto Conforti ed il suo contributo scientifico in materia di diritti umani
  • Guido Raimondi, Benedetto Conforti prima Commissario e poi Giudice dei diritti umani a Strasburgo
  • Studi
    • Roberto Baratta, Diritti fondamentali e riconoscimento dello status filii in casi di maternità surrogata: la primazia degli interessi del minore
    • Giulia Rossolillo, Riconoscimento di status familiari e adozioni sconosciute all’ordinamento italiano
    • I rapporti tra giustizia penale internazionale e mantenimento della pace
    • Emanuele Cimiotta, Gabriele Della Morte, Introduction
    • Maurizio Arcari, A Vetoed International Criminal Justice? Cursory Remarks on the Current Relationship Between the UN Security Council and International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
    • Frédéric Mégret & Nidal Nabil Jurdi, The International Criminal Court, the ‘Arab Spring’ and Its Aftermath
  • Interventi
    • Chiara Favilli, La cooperazione UE-Turchia per contenere il flusso dei migranti e richiedenti asilo: obiettivo riuscito?
    • Alessia Iolanda Matonti, Il caso Ljubljanska Banka D.D. c. Croazia: le società a controllo pubblico fra legittimazione ad agire e responsabilità dello Stato
  • Osservatorio
    • Nicole Lazzerini, Gli obblighi in materia di protezione dei diritti fondamentali come limite all’esecuzione del mandato di arresto europeo: la sentenza Aranyosi e Căldăraru
    • Chiara Ragni, Il diritto al ricongiungimento familiare nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo: riflessioni a margine del caso Pajić
    • Laura Salvadego, Il divieto per i dipendenti del pubblico impiego di esibire simboli religiosi in Francia all’esame dei giudici di Strasburgo
    • Beatrice Gornati, Le nuove forme di trattenimento dello straniero irregolare in Italia: dall’‘evoluzione’ dei CIE all’introduzione dei c.d. hotspot
    • Loris Marotti, Sul diritto di scegliere la residenza per i beneficiari dello status di protezione sussidiaria: profili evolutivi e aspetti problematici nell’approccio della Corte di giustizia
    • Andrea Caligiuri, La situazione del Sahara occidentale e la sua incidenza sull’applicazione degli accordi internazionali conclusi dall’UE con il Marocco

van der Linden: The Acquisition of Africa (1870-1914): The Nature of International Law

Mieke van der Linden (Max Planck Institute of Comparative Public Law and International Law) has published The Acquisition of Africa (1870-1914): The Nature of International Law (Brill | Nijhoff 2016). Here's the abstract:
Over recent decades, the responsibility for the past actions of the European colonial powers in relation to their former colonies has been subject to a lively debate. In this book, the question of the responsibility under international law of former colonial States is addressed. Such a legal responsibility would presuppose the violation of the international law that was applicable at the time of colonization. In the ‘Scramble for Africa’ during the Age of New Imperialism (1870-1914), European States and non-State actors mainly used cession and protectorate treaties to acquire territorial sovereignty (imperium) and property rights over land (dominium). The question is raised whether Europeans did or did not on a systematic scale breach these treaties in the context of the acquisition of territory and the expansion of empire, mainly through extending sovereignty rights and, subsequently, intervening in the internal affairs of African political entities.

Call for Papers: The Geopolitics of International Law: Contemporary Challenges for the Asia-Pacific

A call for papers has been issued for the 2017 International Law Association-American Society of International Law Asia-Pacific Research Forum, which will be hosted by the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, on May 19-20, 2017, in Taipei. The theme of the Research Forum is: "The Geopolitics of International Law: Contemporary Challenges for the Asia-Pacific." Here's the call:

Call for Papers


The Geopolitics of International Law:
Contemporary Challenges for the Asia-Pacific

May 19-20, 2017

Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China

Hosted by:

Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law – Chinese (Taiwan) Branch of the International Law Association (ILA), in partnership with the Law in the Pacific Rim Region Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) and the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University

I. Theme

The Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law will hold the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum on May 19-20, 2017 at Howard Civil Service International House in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. The theme of the Research Forum is “The Geopolitics of International Law: Contemporary Challenges for the Asia-Pacific.” The Research Forum aims to provide a forum for academics, private practitioners and government attorneys to present works-in-progress across the spectrum of international and transnational law issues related to the Asia-Pacific. The tentative schedule for the Research Forum is as follows:

Friday, May 19, 2017: Registration and Welcome Reception
Saturday, May 20, 2017: Opening Ceremony and Forum Sessions

II. Submission of Paper Proposals

The organizing committee welcomes proposals on any topic relating to international law with a focus on the Asia-Pacific. Subject areas include, but are not limited to, the following:

    1. Law of the Sea (e.g., The South China Sea Arbitration)

    2. International Economic Law (e.g., The development of the TPP, the RCEP and the AEC; the WTO and the Paris Agreement)

    3. International Human Rights (e.g., The protection of the rights of women, LGBT and Aboriginal people)

    4. Recognition/Non-recognition in International Law (e.g., Recognition policies of Asian states; recognition and sovereign immunity in domestic courts)

Paper proposals must be submitted to by January 10, 2017. A proposal of no more than 500 words should include the author’s name and full contact information. Please also provide a 1-2 page CV, including a list of recent publications in English.

The organizing committee welcomes proposal submissions from ILA and ASIL members, as well as from non-members. Junior faculty members are particularly welcome. The organizing committee will select proposals and announce the results in early February 2017. Paper presenters are required to submit complete, unpublished papers of no more than 15,000 words, inclusive of footnotes, by May 1, 2017.

Selected papers will be published in the Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs (Brill | Nijhoff). Articles of the Yearbook will also be made available on Westlaw and HeinOnline.

III. Other Information

Participants of the Research Forum are responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses. The organizing committee is not in the position to provide financial support. However, registration fees will be waived for paper presenters. Registration details will be announced in March 2017. Other inquiries can be directed to the organizing committee (Professors Chun-i Chen, Yuka Fukunaga, Pasha Hsieh, Nigel Li, Torsten Stein, and Timothy Webster) by e-mail at

The host institution of the Research Forum is the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, which was founded in 1958 with the purpose of promoting research on international law and crossstraits legal issues. As an ILA branch, the Society held the ILA’s 68th Taipei Biennial Conference in 1998, the ILA’s Asia-Pacific Regional Conferences in 1995 and 2011, and the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum in 2013 and 2015. This Research Forum will reinforce the ILA-ASIL collaboration on international and transnational law research in the Asia-Pacific.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

New Issue: Manchester Journal of International Economic Law

The latest issue of the Manchester Journal of International Economic Law (Vol. 13, no. 2, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Special Symposium on Theory in International Economic Law
    • Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, 20 Years WTO Law and Governance: Some Legal Methodology Problems
    • Frank J. Garcia, Convergences: A Prospectus for Justice in a Global Market Society
    • Chios Carmody, Theory and Theoretical Approaches to WTO Law
    • Cecilia J. Flores Elizondo, Social Constitutions in International Economic Law: Power Differentiation as a Construct for Resistance in the Making of Law
  • General Articles
    • Andrew D. Mitchell & Ana María Palacio, Coordination in the Asian Financial Markets and the Case of TiSA
    • Taida Begić Šarkinović, Investor-State Arbitration: Between Private and Public Interests
    • Tae Jung Park, Contractualism: A Solution to the Public Morals Debate in the WTO

New Issue: La Comunità Internazionale

The latest issue of La Comunità Internazionale (Vol. 71, no. 1, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Pietro Gargiulo, Ricordo di Luigi Ferrari Bravo
  • Interventi
    • Umberto Leanza, L’Accordo italo-francese del 2015 di delimitazione delle frontiere marittime: quadro giuridico di riferimento
  • Articoli e Saggi
    • Mario Gervasi, Rilievi critici sull’Accordo di Parigi: le sue potenzialità e il suo ruolo nell’evoluzione dell’azione internazionale di contrasto al cambiamento climatico
    • Ludovica Chiussi, The UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development: Talking the Talk, Walking the Walk?
  • Osservatorio Diritti Umani
    • Marco Bocchi, Le sentenze pilota nella prassi della Corte Europea dei Diritti Umani e la loro efficacia negli ordinamenti interni
  • Osservatorio Europeo
    • Nicola Ruccia, Caratteristiche, principi e limiti del meccanismo di risoluzione unico

New Issue: Rivista di Diritto Internazionale

The latest issue of the Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (Vol. 99, no. 3, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Articoli
    • G. Gaja, Lo statuto della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo nel diritto dell’Unione
    • F. Rossi Dal Pozzo, La tutela dei dati personali tra esigenze di sicurezza nazionale, interessi economici e diritti fondamentali della persona (dal Safe Harbour al Privacy Shield)
    • D. Russo, The Injured Individual’s Right to Compensation in the Law on Diplomatic Protection
  • Note e Commenti
    • P. Picone, La responsabilità degli Stati tra codificazione e sviluppo progressivo della materia
    • I. Papanicolopulu, Commenti a margine dell’ordinanza del tribunale arbitrale nel caso Enrica Lexie
    • A. Liguori, Extraordinary Renditions nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani: il caso Abu Omar
    • S. Marino, Il diritto all’identità personale e la libera circolazione delle persone nell’Unione Europea
    • S. Urbinati, L’epidemia di Ebola in Africa occidentale come minaccia alla pace e alla sicurezza internazionali: quale ruolo per il Consiglio di sicurezza?
  • Necrologio
    • G. Nesi, Ricordo di Luigi Ferrari Bravo
  • Panorama
    • A. Annoni, C’è un giudice per il Sahara occidentale?

New Issue: Global Trade and Customs Journal

The latest issue of Global Trade and Customs Journal (Vol. 11, no. 10, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Eric Pickett & Michael Lux, The Status and Effect of WTO Law Before EU Courts
  • James Searles, The European Union’s Options for China Dumping Methodology After 11 December 2016
  • Gregorio Salatino, ‘Representations and Warranties’ in Sale and Purchase Agreements : The Italian Perspective
  • Jorge Miranda, Implementation of the ‘Shift in Burden of Proof’ Approach to Interpreting Paragraph 15 of China’s Protocol of Accession

Job Opening: Copenhagen (Associate Professor or Professor)

The Faculty of Law of the University of Copenhagen is seeking applications for a position as Associate Professor or Professor of international law or European law with a focus on international courts. The advertisement is here.

New Issue: Ocean Development & International Law

The latest issue of Ocean Development & International Law (Vol. 47, no. 4, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Melissa H. Loja, The Spratly Islands as a Single Unit Under International Law: A Commentary on the Final Award in Philippines/China Arbitration
  • Valentin Schatz, Fishing for Interpretation: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Flag State Responsibility for Illegal Fishing in the EEZ
  • Australian and Canadian Oceans Research Network (ACORN) Workshop
    • Julia Jabour, Tim Stephens & David L. VanderZwaag, Introduction
    • Phillip Saunders & Marcus Haward, Politics, Science, and Species Protection Law: A Comparative Consideration of Southern and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
    • Richard Apostle, Tsafrir Gazit & Marcus Haward, Ocean Tracking and Marine Species Protection in Australia and Canada: Science, Technology, and Knowledge Brokering

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

New Issue: International Community Law Review

The latest issue of the International Community Law Review (Vol. 18, nos. 3-4, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Attila Tanzi, International Law and Foreign Investment in Hydroelectric Industry: A Multidimensional Analysis
  • Andrei Gomez-Suarez; Nicolás M. Perrone & Enrique Prieto Ríos, Foreign Investors and the Colombian Peace Process
  • Zena Hadjiargyrou, A Conceptual and Practical Evaluation of Intergenerational Equity in International Environmental Law
  • Meltem Ineli-Ciger, A Temporary Protection Regime in Line with International Law: Utopia or Real Possibility?
  • Abdulmalik M. Altamimi, An Interactional World Trade Law
  • Marissa Ooms, International Human Rights Law and Its Critics

Call for Submissions: The International Criminal Court’s Policies and Strategies

The Journal of International Criminal Justice has issued a call for submissions for a symposium on "The International Criminal Court’s Policies and Strategies," to be published in 2017. Here's the call:

To mark 15 years since the coming into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 1 July 2002, the Journal of International Criminal Justice is pleased to announce a forthcoming symposium on ‘The International Criminal Court’s Policies and Strategies’ to be published in July 2017.

Almost 15 years into its existence - and notwithstanding almost continuous and at times justified criticism - the ICC continues to consolidate its role in the international community and expand the scope of its activities. Considering the significance and growing number of types of criminal conduct under scrutiny, and the possible repercussions of its activities on ongoing conflicts as well as on post-conflict and transitional processes of justice, the ICC has, from its inception, understood the necessity for a scrupulous, transparent and coherent planning of its activities. To this end, the Court and its various organs have continually issued a number of documents explaining the Court’s policies on numerous distinct issues as well as its strategies for the future.

Of these, particular relevance attaches to the strategic plans and policy papers released by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP),1 especially in an environment where prosecutorial choices are by nature discretionary and not dictated by the ICC Statute or any external actors. These documents have, on the one hand, touched upon themes such as the interests of justice, gender-based violence or crimes against children and, on the other, clarified procedural issues such as case selection and prioritization, preliminary examinations and victims’ participation.

The Journal’s Editorial Committee believes that the time has come to take a closer and systematic look at ICC OTP policies and strategies, looking at the choices made thus far, the level of transparency and consistency, as well as suggesting avenues to strengthen the overall effectiveness and credibility of ICC investigative and prosecutorial strategies.

Key questions or topics that could be examined include, but are not limited to:

  • the need for clear and transparent policies available to the general public and to state parties, also in light of the complementarity system;
  • who are the target audiences of such policies once published and what is their nature (binding or not);
  • the methodology of drafting and then ensuring implementation of policies concerning such highly complex and contentious issues;
  • the overall coherence of policies and strategic plans adopted so far by the OTP;
  • the propriety and effectiveness of one (or more) of those policies currently available and suggestions for amendment or improvement; and
  • gaps/areas where planning or transparency is most needed, possibly in the form of a policy paper, including concrete proposals for the content of such policies and strategies.

The Journal calls for submission of abstracts not exceeding 500 words on the questions described above, or related areas of interest, no later than 15 November 2016. After the abstracts are reviewed, in early December, the Editorial Committee will invite a number of contributors to submit full papers of no more than 8000 words (including an abstract and footnotes) by 28 February 2017.

All papers submitted to the Journal are subject to its double-blind peer-review policy.

It is expected that the symposium will be published in the Journal in its third issue of the year in July 2017, in time to celebrate the anniversary of the entry into force of the ICC Statute on 1 July 2002.

For questions and further information, including on the Journal’s style requirements, please contact the Executive Editor at

1 Available online.

Conference: International Law Weekend 2016

The American Branch of the International Law Association and the International Law Students Association will host International Law Weekend 2016, October 27-29, 2016, in New York City. The conference theme is "International Law 5.0." The program is here.

New Issue: Climate Law

The latest issue of Climate Law (Vol. 6, nos. 3-4, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Special Issue: Renewable-Energy Law
    • Kati Kulovesi; Seita Romppanen & Yulia Yamineva, Introduction to Climate Law’s Special Issue on Renewable-Energy Law
    • Federico Esu & Francesco Sindico, IRENA and IEA: Moving Together Towards a Sustainable Energy Future—Competition or Collaboration?
    • Kim Talus, Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee: Judicial Challenges to Renewable-Energy Support Schemes in Europe
    • Eirini Tsifopoulou, Renewable-Energy Support Schemes in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU: Tensions Between Trade and Climate Objectives
    • Taotao Yue & Marjan Peeters, Better Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accounting for Biofuels: A Key to Biofuels Sustainability
    • Max Salomon Jansson, Public Procurement and Biofuel Sustainability Criteria: Is There a Link?
    • Carlos Soria-Rodríguez, Marine Renewable Energies and the European Regional Seas Conventions
    • Natalie Jones, Wind Energy and Adverse Visual-Impact Litigation: A Balance of Global and Local Interests?
    • Anne Kallies, New Directions of Legal Reform for Renewable Energy in Europe: From Single-Plant Support to Whole- of-System Approaches

Call for Papers: The Role of the European Parliament in the Conclusion and Implementation of Agreements on International Economic Law Issues

The Interest Group on International Economic Law of the European Society of International Law, in cooperation with the European Parliament, has issued a call for papers for a conference on "The Role of the European Parliament in the Conclusion and Implementation of Agreements on International Economic Law Issues," to take place December 9, 2016, in Brussels. The call is here.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Poon: The EU Commission on 'Dublin IV': Sufficient Safeguards for Asylum Claimants?

Jenny Poon (Western Univ. - Law) has posted an ESIL Reflection on The EU Commission on 'Dublin IV': Sufficient Safeguards for Asylum Claimants?

Porter: Benevolent Empire: U.S. Power, Humanitarianism, and the World's Dispossessed

Stephen R. Porter (Univ. of Cincinnati - History) has published Benevolent Empire: U.S. Power, Humanitarianism, and the World's Dispossessed (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Stephen Porter's Benevolent Empire examines political-refugee aid initiatives and related humanitarian endeavors led by American people and institutions from World War I through the Cold War, opening an important window onto the "short American century." Chronicling both international relief efforts and domestic resettlement programs aimed at dispossessed people from Europe, Latin America, and East Asia, Porter asks how, why, and with what effects American actors took responsibility for millions of victims of war, persecution, and political upheaval during these decades. Diverse forces within the American state and civil society directed these endeavors through public-private governing arrangements, a dynamic yielding both benefits and liabilities. Motivated by a variety of geopolitical, ethical, and cultural reasons, these advocates for humanitarian action typically shared a desire to portray the United States, to the American people and international audiences, as an exceptional, benevolent world power whose objects of concern might potentially include any vulnerable people across the globe. And though reality almost always fell short of that idealized vision, Porter argues that this omnivorous philanthropic energy helped propel and steer the ascendance of the United States to its position of elite global power.

The messaging and administration of refugee aid initiatives informed key dimensions of American and international history during this period, including U.S. foreign relations, international humanitarianism and human rights, global migration and citizenship, and American political development and social relations at home. Benevolent Empire is thus simultaneously a history of the United States and the world beyond.

Abbott: Orchestrating Experimentation in Non-State Environmental Commitments

Kenneth W. Abbott (Arizona State Univ. - Law) has posted Orchestrating Experimentation in Non-State Environmental Commitments. Here's the abstract:
A striking development in climate governance is the emergence of systems for non-state actors to make voluntary commitments alongside state undertakings. Because these commitments involve diverse actors carrying out diverse activities in diverse settings, they provide unprecedented opportunities for experimentation and learning. Yet voluntary commitment systems (VCS) rarely promote experimentation and provide few systematic learning mechanisms. I argue, based on work with Duncan Snidal, for a more strongly experimental approach. First, VCS should encourage designed, controlled policy experiments consistent with scientific standards. Second, even where formal experiments are infeasible, VCS should treat commitments as informal experiments, orchestrating them to promote innovation, comparability, analysis and systematic learning. Collaborative initiatives and other actors can act as orchestrators, encouraging and supporting formal and informal experimentation through persuasion, technical and material assistance, recognition, third-party assistance and other incentives.

Hathaway, et al.: Consent is Not Enough: Why States Must Respect the Intensity Threshold in Transnational Conflict

Oona A. Hathaway (Yale Univ. - Law), Rebecca Crootof (Yale Univ. - Law), Daniel Hessel, Julia Shu, & Sarah Weiner have posted Consent is Not Enough: Why States Must Respect the Intensity Threshold in Transnational Conflict (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

It is widely accepted that a state cannot treat a struggle with an organized non-state actor as an armed conflict until the violence crosses a minimum threshold of intensity. For instance, during the recent standoff at the Oregon wildlife refuge, the U.S. government could have lawfully used force pursuant to its domestic law enforcement and human rights obligations; President Obama could not have ordered a drone strike on the protesters. The reason for this uncontroversial rule is simple — not every riot or civil disturbance should be treated like a war.

But what if President Obama had invited Canada to bomb the protestors — once the United States consented, would all bets be off? Can an intervening state use force that would be illegal for the host state to use itself? The silence on this issue is dangerous, in no small part because these once-rare conflicts are now commonplace. States are increasingly using force against organized non-state actors outside of the states’ own territories — usually, though not always, with the consent of the host state. What constrains the scope of the host state’s consent? And can the intervening state always presume that consent is valid?

This Article argues that a host state’s authority to consent is limited and that intervening states cannot treat consent as a blank check. Accordingly, even in consent-based interventions, the logic and foundational norms of the international legal order require both consent-giving and consent-receiving states to independently evaluate what legal regime governs — this will often turn on whether the intensity threshold has been met. If a non-international armed conflict exists, the actions of the intervening state are governed by international humanitarian law; if not, its actions are governed instead by its own and the host state’s human rights obligations.

Call for Papers: 4th Annual Conference of the International Network on Transnational Legal and Political Theory

The International Network on Transnational Legal and Political Theory has issued a call for papers for its 4th Annual Conference, to take place May 7-8, 2017, at Bar-Ilan University. Here's the call:

Call for Papers: The 4th Annual Conference of the International Network on Transnational Legal and Political Theory

Bar-Ilan University Law Faculty, Israel, 7-8 May, 2017

The field of transnational and political theory is undergoing major changes. As trends of globalization intensify, cross-border legal, political, economic, social (and other) links increase, scholarship in the field is rapidly expanding and diversifying. Such times invite a reflection on the state of the field – mapping the main topics of discussion, assessing its major contributions thus far, identifying existing gaps, and critically thinking about possible trajectories to be pursued in the future.

The conference aims to provide scholars with an opportunity to present and discuss work in progress on key questions faced by transnational legal and political theory. Possible topics may include (but are not limited to):

  • The role of formal and informal networks in transnational law
  • The intersection/clash between different bodies of law in the transnational legal context (e.g., international human rights law/international humanitarian law, national/international law etc.)
  • Private ordering in the transnational domain
  • Political obligation in the global context
  • The rule of law in the transnational arena
  • The “glocal” effects of international and national institutions
  • The rights, duties and accountability of non-state actors at the global level
  • Community autonomy and quality of relations between political communities
  • Social justice in transnational and international law
  • Global governance and questions of legitimacy

We welcome dialogue across philosophical, historical, political, socio-economic and legal disciplines.

The conference will be hosted by Bar-Ilan Faculty of Law on 7-8 May 2017.

Prospective participants are invited to submit their applications by 15 November 2016, by email, to the conference conveners:

Prof. Oren Perez:
Dr. Sivan Shlomo Agon:
Dr. Ziv Bohrer:

The Conference Academic Committee: Oren Perez, Sivan Shlomo Agon, Ziv Bohrer, Maks Del Mar and Nicole Roughan.

Please include in your submission:

  • An abstract of 500 – 750 words (in English)
  • Your name(s), affiliation(s) and contact information
  • A brief bio

The conference will be held in English. Lunch and dinner will be covered for the conference participants. Participants are kindly requested to make their own travel arrangements. The organizers will provide a list of recommended hotels.

Any questions about the conference may be directed by email to the conference conveners in the email addresses indicated above.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Heller: 'Taking a Consenting Part': The Lost Mode of Participation

Kevin Jon Heller (SOAS Univ. of London - Law) has posted 'Taking a Consenting Part': The Lost Mode of Participation (Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This short article, my contribution to a special issue of the Loyola International and Comparative Law Review commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trial, critically examines “taking a consenting part” in an international crime – a mode of participation that was applied by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals but then disappeared into the ether of international criminal law, never to be seen again. The article is divided into three sections. Section I briefly explains how the NMTs understood the basic principles of individual criminal responsibility. Section II discusses the essential elements of “taking a consenting part” as a sui generis omission-based mode of participation. Finally, using the ICTY’s judgments in Hadžihasanović as a case study, Section III asks whether international criminal law would be better off if it rediscovered “taking a consenting part” in an international crime.

Mitchell, Hawkins, & Mishra: Dear Prudence: Allowances Under International Trade and Investment Law for Prudential Regulation in the Financial Services Sector

Andrew D. Mitchell (Univ. of Melbourne - Law), Jennifer Hawkins (PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP), & Neha Mishra (Univ. of Melbourne - Law) have posted Dear Prudence: Allowances Under International Trade and Investment Law for Prudential Regulation in the Financial Services Sector (Journal of International Economic Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Governments impose prudential regulations to ensure the stability of the financial sector and protect depositors and investors. However, these regulations may also restrict trade in financial services. The Annex on Financial Services of the World Trade Organization’s (‘WTO’) General Agreement on Trade in Services (‘GATS’) contains an exception allowing countries to take measures for ‘prudential reasons’ to protect the ‘integrity and stability of the financial system’ or to ‘protect investors, depositors, policy holders or persons to whom a fiduciary duty is owed by financial service suppliers’. Corresponding provisions appear in numerous other trade and investment agreements. The WTO has now issued its first ruling on the prudential exception in Argentina — Financial Services. The ruling of the Panel recognizes the policy space necessary for countries to determine their own prudential reasons for taking measures. As disputes regarding prudential exceptions are likely to increase in the coming years, two key challenges remain in applying such exceptions: adopting an integrated international approach to prudential regulation, given the diverse views held amongst countries; and identifying effective measures in preventing risks to the financial sector.