The European Union has established a new model of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in its recent treaties with Canada and Vietnam. The EU’s new model entails a radical reworking of ISDS through, inter alia, the introduction of an appellate mechanism, the replacement of ad hoc arbitral tribunals with standing, treaty-based investment tribunals, and the replacement of party-appointed arbitrators with judges appointed by the states parties. Beyond its bilateral arrangements with Canada and Vietnam, the EU has indicated that it will pursue a treaty to multilateralize its new investment tribunal system.
This talk addresses the legal compatibility of the EU’s new model of ISDS with existing instruments of the investment treaty regime in two respects. First, whether the introduction of an appellate mechanism or, indeed, the more total reworking of ISDS to establish investment tribunals, renders multilateral instruments like the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention inapplicable to the modified process of ISDS. Second, how the integration of any new appellate mechanism with existing international investment treaties might technically be achieved.
The paper concludes that the EU’s new model is not compatible with the ICSID Convention and will not produce “ICSID Convention” awards that require enforcement by third states under the Convention’s unique enforcement regime. The paper further concludes, however, that the awards rendered by the EU’s new model should be treated as arbitral awards for the purposes of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Lastly, with respect to the integration of any new appellate mechanism with existing international investment treaties, the paper considers the prospects of adopting a so-called “Mauritius Convention” approach.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Calamita: The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime
- Laurence R. Helfer & Anne E. Showalter, Opposing International Justice: Kenya’s Integrated Backlash Strategy against the ICC
- Rosa Ana Alija Fernández & Jaume Saura Estapà, Towards a Single and Comprehensive Notion of ‘Civilian Population’ in Crimes against Humanity
- David Lowe, The European Union’s Passenger Name Record Data Directive 2016/681: Is it Fit for Purpose?
- Ahmed Samir Hassanein, Self-referral of Situations to the International Criminal Court: Complementarity in Practice – Complementarity in Crisis
- Maria Pichou, Between Pragmatism and Normativity: Legal Standards for Issuing Subpoenas and Witnesses Summonses in International Criminal Procedure
- Francesca Capone, ‘Worse’ than Child Soldiers? A Critical Analysis of Foreign Children in the Ranks of ISIL
- Windell Nortje, Victim or Villain: Exploring the Possible Bases of a Defence in the Ongwen Case at the International Criminal Court
- Marie-Alice D’Aoust, Sexual and Gender-based Violence in International Criminal Law: A Feminist Assessment of the Bemba Case
Friday, April 7, 2017
Legal theory provides conceptions of the sources of international law that differ according to time and place. Section 1 employs MacCormick’s explanation of institutional order to frame the ensuing discussion by arguing that conceptual understandings of law, including international law, are socially constructed. Section 2 starts from Austin’s denial that international law possesses the quality of law because international society lacks an ultimate sovereign that is superior to States. It considers the function that sovereignty has played in some explanations of international law and its sources, which raises the significance of State consent. This is explored further in section 3 which focuses on the paradigm shift that Grotius introduced into natural law, and consequently into international law, by substituting consent for theology as its underpinning explanation. Sections 4 and 5 consider 20th century transatlantic variants of natural law. Section 4 examines three influential British theorists — Brierly, Fitzmaurice, and Lauterpacht — each of whom relied on natural law to overcome perceived inadequacies of consent-based positivist theories. Section 5 examines the more instrumentalist naturalism of the New Haven School which endeavoured to ensure the promulgation of American democratic values by emphasizing policy and choice in decision-making. Section 6 draws some, inevitably imperfect, conclusions.
International law is in a period of transition. After World War II, but especially since the 1980s, human rights expanded to almost every corner of international law. In doing so, they changed core features of international law itself, including the definition of sovereignty and the sources of international legal rules. But what might be termed the “golden-age” of international human rights law is over, at least for now. Whether measured in terms of the increasing number of authoritarian governments, the decline in international human rights enforcement architecture such as the Responsibility to Protect and the Alien Tort Statute, the growing power of China and Russia over the content of international law, or rising nationalism and populism, international human rights law is in retreat.
The decline offers an opportunity to consider how human rights changed, or purported to change, international law and how international law as a whole can be made more effective in a post-human rights era. This article is the first to argue that international human rights law – whatever its much disputed benefits for human rights themselves – appears to have expanded and changed international law itself in ways that have made it weaker, less likely to generate compliance, and more likely to produce interstate friction and conflict. The debate around international law and human rights needs to be reframed to consider these costs and to evaluate whether international law, including the work of the United Nations, should focus on a stronger, more limited core of international legal norms that protects international peace and security, not human rights.
The purpose of the jus ad bellum is to draw a line in the sand: thus far, but no further. In the light of modern warfare, a state should today have an explicitly recognised and undisputed right of delimited unilateral defence not only in response to an occurring armed attack, but also in interception of an inevitable or imminent armed attack. This book, however, makes it evident that unilateral interception is not incontestably compatible with the modern right of self-defence in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Then again, unilateral defence need not forever be confined to self-defence only, wherefore the book proposes that the concept of defence may best be modernised by a clear legal division into responsive and interceptive defence. Since both threat and use of force are explicitly prohibited in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, this book further recommends that both responsive and interceptive defence should be explicitly excepted from this prohibition in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The modern jus ad bellum should thus legally recognise a dual face of defence: responsive self-defence if an armed attack occurs, and interceptive necessity-defence if a grave and urgent threat of an armed attack occurs. For without a clarifying and modernising revision, the concept of defence will become irreparably blurred until it is completely dissolved into the ever-shifting sands of war.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Tortora: The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals: A Unique Model and Some of Its Distinctive Challenges
Stahn: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't: Challenges and Critiques of ICC Preliminary Examinations
Preliminary examinations are one of the most important, yet understudied elements of ICC practice. Hardly any policy document raises greater anxiety than the yearly OTP report on preliminary examinations. The existing docket covers some of the world’s most daunting crises (e.g., Ukraine, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan). When the Rome Statute was drafted, little attention was devoted to preliminary examination. Most works on international criminal procedure focus on investigations. This contribution shows that preliminary examinations have turned into a partly new species of proceedings which navigate between internal analysis, atrocity alert, and monitoring of situations. The OTP Strategic Plan (2016-2018) associates preliminary examination with ambitious rationales, such as early warning, deterrence or complementarity. But the functioning, purpose and effects of preliminary examinations remain contested. There is a significant gap between expectation and reality. This contribution re-visits some of the competing approaches in ICC practice, gray zones in the legal framework and emerging methodological challenges (e.g., phased-based approach, prioritization, confidentiality vs. transparency). It argues that certain dilemmas will never fully go away and do not necessarily lend themselves to abstract legal regulation. But it suggests certain improvements to practice, including deeper engagement with situations and their context, a better connection between atrocity alert and complementarity strategies, and a more thorough explanation of choices not to proceed. The longer a preliminary examination lasts, the more pressing these prerogatives become.
This paper asks whether the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917 in Russia has left traces in the current international legal order. Unrelated to the revolutionary ideas or even specifically reacting against them, the international regimes of refugee protection, international labour law, and investment protection were built up and last. In contrast, the concept of a separate system of socialist international law seems not to have survived the breakdown of the socialist block in 1989. However, the mutual interaction between the domestic legal and political systems and the international legal rules governing the states, as postulated by socialist international law, is increasingly acknowledged. The paper argues that practitioners and scholars of international law need to make productive use of the different ideational backgrounds of the participants in the international jurisgenerative processes but should be wary of creating different rules for similarly situated players. The paper then examines the superficial appeal of socialist ideas for tackling the current problems of globalisation, notably extreme social inequality within and across states. It concludes that, due to its reductionist concepts, the Russian revolution and socialist international law mainly provides a negative blueprint for the further evolution of international law. However, it is a reminder of the imperative for addressing global social injustice which has become ever more pressing in times of unfettered globalisation.
- Thomas Spijkerboer, Wasted Lives. Borders and the Right to Life of People Crossing Them
- Natalia Perova, Disentangling ‘Effective Control’ Test for the Purpose of Attribution of the Conduct of UN Peacekeepers to the States and the United Nations
- Marina Aksenova, Human Rights at the International Criminal Court: Testing the Limits of Judicial Discretion
- Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, The Meaning of Airspace Sovereignty Today – A Case Study on Demilitarisation and Functional Airspace Blocks
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Broude, Haftel, & Thompson: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Regulatory Space: A Comparison of Treaty Texts
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, signed in February of 2016, is an ambitious effort to set high standards on a ‘mega-regional’ level. This paper examines the TPP’s investment provisions with a focus on their most controversial dimension: the extent to which they constrain the ‘state regulatory space’ (SRS) of host states. We embrace the text-as-data approach by coding the TPP and other investment agreements among TPP parties on designed features related to SRS. The challenges presented by this coding exercise demonstrate some of the advantages of manual coding over automated methods when nuance and interpretation are required. With our data, we first compare the TPP to other agreements and find that it scores relatively high on SRS, although it falls within the range of existing agreements and does not seem to chart new territory in this regard. We then investigate which existing agreements are most similar to and dissimilar from the TPP with respect to SRS. Using regression analysis, we consider a number of factors to explain this variation and find that the TPP is most similar to agreements involving the United States, to agreements among Western Hemispheric countries, to other free trade agreements with investment chapters, and to more recent agreements. However, different factors seem to matter if we look only at provisions related to investor-state dispute settlement versus substantive provisions, implying that it is important to distinguish between the substantive and procedural dimensions of treaties.
What shapes jurisprudence in international law? States dedicate considerable effort trying to influence not only the outcome, but also the content, of legal rulings. The stakes are high, as these legal opinions can redefine the meaning of the rules. Looking at the World Trade Organization, we ask whether some countries hold more influence over jurisprudence than others, and what such influence depends on. Using text analyses of every country submission in every ruling in the WTO era, we test a number of theoretical expectations. We find that some countries do appear to hold greater sway over the content of rulings than others: a country’s wealth, but especially its legal experience, account for much of this variation. Secondly, countries’ influence over the content of the verdict varies according to how novel the legal issue being ruled on is: states have more influence over the content of the ruling, the less precedent judges have to rely on in terms of prior legal decisions. The salience of the case and judges’ legal experience also follow expectations, as both are shown to take away from countries’ influence. Overall, the degree to which countries’ submissions influence the content of rulings appears to vary systematically. Legal capacity affects not only countries’ ability to file disputes, but also their ability to affect the shape of the resulting jurisprudence.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
15 - 16 September 2017
2nd Hamburg Young Scholars’ Workshop in International Law
Institute for International Affairs,
University of Hamburg Faculty of Law
The Hamburg Workshop will be held from 15 - 16 September 2017 to discuss research projects in international law among peers (e.g. a chapter of a dissertation, a draft of an article, case comments). The workshop brings together promising doctoral students and postdocs with a background in international law and neighbouring disciplines. All participants ought to exchange ideas and arguments to inspire each other and advance with their research. Public international law and common sense will serve as a shared basis that will result in discovering parallel developments and similar issues in different fields of international law.
Each participant is granted 60 minutes for presentation including a discussion, which will allow for an in-depth debate to constructively discuss the ideas presented.
Please submit in one single PDF file your 300-500 words proposal as well as your CV (up to 3 pages) to email@example.com until 31st May 2017. The selection of presentations is based on the quality of the abstract, as well as its capacity to engage with the other proposals towards a collaborative academic and intellectual discussion.
Selected proposals will be announced by mid-June 2017. The workshop will take place in the premises of the University of Hamburg. Unfortunately, there is no funding available to cover travel or accomodation expenses.
Questions may be directed to Anne Dienelt (firstname.lastname@example.org).
We look forward to your submissions and participation!
The present book aims to conceptualize and present, in a concise manner, the main questions raised in the field of international law regarding the role of the States and private actors in the prevention and the reaction to cyber-attacks. It has been prepared within the framework of the French Cybersecurity Initiative launched in 2017 by the Secretary General for National Defense and Security and the French National Cyber-Security Agency (ANSSI) and it will be presented for the International Conference to be held at UNESCO on 6 and 7 April 2017 on the theme: “Building International Peace and Security in a Digital Society – Public Actors, Private Actors: Duties and Responsibilities”. This study strictly expresses the personal opinions of its authors in the framework of their academic research.
The point of departure for this book is that the dramatic rise of cyber-attacks involving States and non-State actors could constitute a real threat to international peace and security. In 2013, the members of the UN GGE recognized the application of International Law in the cyberspace. The cyberspace is not a “No Law’s Land”; rather, it can be regulated by International Law, as are virtually all international activities. But the task in this field is infinitely more complex, not only because of the very nature of the cyberspace but also because the great diversity of the actors involved. These actors include potential perpetrators of cyber-attacks (States, "proxies", private actors supported or tolerated by States, terrorists, cybercriminals, companies conducting espionage or wanting to gain a competitive advantage, individual hackers, patriotic hacker groups, etc.); potential victims of attacks (States, administrations and communities, companies, media, individuals, etc.); those involved in these attacks (eg. the States through which cyber-attacks transit, companies and individuals whose systems are used by the attackers without the knowledge of the owners); and, finally, those to be potentially involved in a response to a cyber-attack (States, private companies acting for their own benefits, private companies undertaking a response on behalf of another company, etc.). This situation creates an impressive number of combinations, which in their respective turns affect the type and appropriateness of a response.
The first part of this book focuses on the issue of prevention and argues that the concept of “cyber-diligence”, which we have forged on the basis of existing international law and the obligation of any State not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States , provides a satisfactory answer to the question of vigilance that States should exercise with regard to cyber-operations developed from their territory by private actors.
The second part of this book, examines those responses to cyber-attacks which can be developed in accordance with international law. It proceeds to a classification of the possible reactions to cyber-attacks, by proposing a kind of “user’s manual” for victim States that wish to react within the limits of international legality. It distinguishes between reactions always permitted and other reactions that are permissible only if it can be established that a State has committed an “internationally wrongful act” by action or omission. It stresses the need for international cooperation in this area, and warns against any “trivialization” of responses that are in principle violations of international law but are “excused” as circumstances precluding wrongfulness or responsibility.
In the third part of this book, we focus on the very important role that the private sector plays in this field, from preventing cyber-attacks and securing digital infrastructures to “active cyber defense” measures, passing through activities such as the attribution of cyber-attacks. Private sector activities in the area of cyber-security raise several issues and controversies, of political, ethical, technical and legal nature. We carry out a detailed study of the problems of “active cyber defense” and “hack-back” from the point of view of both international and comparative law. After analyzing the advantages, disadvantages and risks of hack-back, we answer to the question of whether private actors can unilaterally undertake cyber-offensive measures in accordance with the law, and examine to what extent States can authorize a hack-back operation and/or rely on private actors to conduct counter-attacks. Our conclusion is that private actors would be better off investing in cyber hygiene and the implementation of good safety practices, rather than trying to acquire offensive tools. If, nevertheless, they are victims of a cyber-attack, instead of launching a -technically and legally- hazardous hack-back, it would be better if they notified the State authorities of the attack and asked them to act, and also exercised their legal rights against the perpetrator of the cyber-attack, assuming that the perpetrator can be identified. States should act within the framework of international law (and especially human rights law) to enhance their proactive and reactive capabilities in order to avoid giving the impression that proper legal forms of reaction are either nonexistent or insufficient. Indeed, the impression of inadequate and inefficient government gatekeeping in the field of cyber-security serves the interests of those who call for cyber-vigilantism. States could, if needed, rely on private actors to conduct counter-attacks under certain circumstances, but this should be done under States’ close control, with the risk of triggering their international responsibility.
This book fills gaps in the exploration of the protection of cultural heritage in armed conflict based on the World Heritage Convention. Marina Lostal offers a new perspective, designating a specific protection regime to world cultural heritage sites, which is so far lacking despite the fact that such sites are increasingly targeted. Lostal spells out this area's discrete legal principles, providing accessible and succinct guidelines to a usually complex web of international conventions. Using the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Mali (among others) as case studies, she offers timely insight into the phenomenon of cultural heritage destruction. Lastly, by incorporating the World Heritage Convention into the discourse, this book fulfills UNESCO's long-standing project of exploring 'how to promote the systemic integration between the [World Heritage] Convention of 1972 and the other UNESCO regimes'. It is sure to engender debate and cause reflection over cultural heritage and protection regimes.
The Great Compact, which is the basis of ISDS, is at the heart of the contemporary international investment system. The major challenge to it now comes from Developed Countries, who seem to have lost sight of its inclusive benefits.
International legal work involves trying to verify the condition of the world. This aspect of international legal work is changing in light of growing automation. The range of persons capable of engaging with this work, and ways of contesting what can be experienced in common, are shifting. With this comes redistribution of the power to govern and other juridical capacities on the global plane. Taking IAEA and UNHCR practices as exemplars, this article argues for renewed attention to these shifts.
Monday, April 3, 2017
MPIL: Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors: Impulses from the Max Planck Trialogues on the Law of Peace and War
- A. Peters & C. Marxsen, Editors’ Introduction: Self-Defence in Times of Transition
- O. Corten, Has Practice Led to an “Agreement Between the Parties” Regarding the Interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter?
- T. Christakis, Challenging the “Unwilling or Unable” Test
- I. Österdahl, Scarcely Reconcilable with the UN Charter
- S. Kawagishi, Clearing Uncertainties of the Jurisprudence of the ICJ on Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors
- P. Urs, Effective Territorial Control by Non-State Armed Groups and the Right of Self-Defence
- L. Lo Giacco, Reconsidering the Legal Basis for Military Actions Against Non-State Actors
- B. Sjöstedt, Applying the Unable/Unwilling State Doctrine – Can a State Be Unable to Take Action?
- M. Hartwig, Which State’s Territory May Be Used for Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors?
- J.A. Frowein, Article 51 and the Realities of the Present Day World
- K. Oellers-Frahm, Article 51 – What Matters Is the Armed Attack, not the Attacker
- I. Couzigou, The Right to Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors – Criteria of the “Unwilling or Unable” Test
- G. Keinan, Humanising the Right of Self-Defence
- C.J. Tams, Embracing the Uncertainty of Old: Armed Attacks by Non-State Actors Prior to 9/11
- L. van den Herik, “Proceduralising” Article 51
- A. Tancredi, Doctrinal Alternatives to Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors
- M. Wood, Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors – A Practitioner’s View
- L. Grover, Intertemporality and Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors
- C.-P. Sassenrath, Diverging Interpretations of Individual State Practice on Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors – Considerations for a Methodological Approach
- P. Starski, A Call for a Turn to the Meta-Level of International Law: Silence, the “Interregnum”, and the Conundrum of Ius Cogens
- C. Marxsen, A Note on Indeterminacy of the Law on Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors
- JHHW, The Case for a Kinder, Gentler Brexit; 10 Good Reads; Vital Statistics; In this Issue
- Marcelo Kohen, In Memoriam: Vera Gowlland-Debbas
- The EJIL Foreword
- Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Plurality in the Fabric of International Courts and Tribunals: The Threads of a Managerial Approach
- Florian Grisel, Treaty-Making between Public Authority and Private Interests: The Genealogy of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
- Nahuel Maisley, The International Right of Rights? Article 25(a) of the ICCPR as a Human Right to Take Part in International Law-Making
- Armin von Bogdandy, Matthias Goldmann, & Ingo Venzke, From Public International to International Public Law: Translating World Public Opinion into International Public Authority
- Natalie Davidson, Shifting the Lenses on Alien Tort Statute Litigation: Narrating US Hegemony in Filártiga and Marcos
- Alejandro Chehtman, The ad bellum Challenge of Drones: Recalibrating Permissible Use of Force
- Roaming Charges: Places of Solitude
- EJIL: Debate!
- Liam Murphy, Law Beyond the State: Some Philosophical Questions
- Samantha Besson, Law Beyond the State: A Reply to Liam Murphy
- Nehal Bhuta, Law Beyond the State: A Reply to Liam Murphy
- Christoph Möllers, Law Beyond the State: A Reply to Liam Murphy
- Jochen von Bernstorff, Law Beyond the State: A Reply to Liam Murphy
- Liam Murphy, Law Beyond the State: A Rejoinder
- Critical Review of International Governance
- Michelle Zang, Shall We Talk: Judicial Communication between the CJEU and WTO Dispute Settlement
- Review Essay
- Thomas Kleinlein, Jus Cogens Re-examined: Value Formalism in International Law
- EJIL Editors’ Choice of Books 2016
- André Nollkaemper, Jan Klabbers & Jean d’Aspremont
Sunday, April 2, 2017
- Marek Jan Wasinski, Endemic Disregard for the International Rule of Law in Africa?
- Franck Duhautoy, Global Warming: an Incubator of Deterritorialized States
- Paweł Mielniczek, Limits of the Right of Self-Defense of Individuals in International Criminal Law
- Marta Szuniewicz, An Interpretation of 'Internal Armed Conflict' under EU Asylum Law - how far is too far? Diakité case comments
- A realistic utopia? Critical analyses of the Human Rights State in theory and deployment
- René Wolfsteller & Benjamin Gregg, Introduction
- René Wolfsteller, The institutionalisation of human rights reconceived: the human rights state as a sociological ‘ideal type’
- Yingru Li & John McKernan, ‘Achieved not given’: human rights, critique and the need for strong foundations
- Richard Georgi, The human rights project and the transformation of social (b)orders: on the political nature of human rights activism in the wake of the Zapatista uprising
- Ulisses Terto Neto, Democracy, social authoritarianism, and the human rights state theory: towards effective citizenship in Brazil
- Gorana Ognjenović & Jasna Jozelić, The human rights state and freedom of religion in south-eastern Europe: the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Johannes Hendrik Fahner, Revisiting the human right to democracy: a positivist analysis
- Olga Bezbozhna & Helena Olsson, Note from the field: applying a ‘human rights cognitive style’ in the Raoul Wallenberg Institute’s work on human rights education with universities
- Benjamin Gregg, The human rights state: theoretical challenges, empirical deployments: reply to my critics
1917 was nothing if not eventful. The October Revolution and the revolutionary Mexican Constitution shook the foundations of the international order and international law in profound, unprecedented and lasting ways. One hundred years later, living again through eventful times, we propose to revisit 1917 as an international legal event and to examine its multidimensional impact on the discipline of international law. More specifically, we are interested in analysing the importance of these revolutions for various international legal fields, including the law of armed intervention, the laws of state succession, state responsibility and state immunity as well as international investment law or the rules governing statehood for the purposes of international law.
This conference will draw together a range of scholars and disciplines in order to explore the place of revolution in the international legal order. How did or does international law conceptualise or juridify revolution? What different mechanisms did international law employ in response to the various challenges posed by revolution to particular interests, regimes or paradigms (of property, peace, or politics)? What different forms of intervention (through the laws of war, of expropriation, or of restitution) did they prompt? In the wake of a revolutionary event, should we speak of international law, or rather of rival international laws? Is international law’s structure a means of countering or containing revolution?
24th-25th August 2017-Melbourne Law School
Organisers: Ms Kathryn Greenman, Professor Anne Orford, Ms Anna Saunders, Dr Ntina Tzouvala – Laureate Program in International Law ‘Civil War, Intervention and International Law’
Email abstract submission to email@example.com by 1 May 2017. Successful applicants will be notified by mid-May 2017.
Este texto revisa la interpretación y aplicación internacional así como la relación con diversas areas del Derecho internacional y el estudio de casos nacionales como aplicación del Artículo 15 de la Convención sobre Diversidad Biológica de 1992. Se complementa lo anterior con lo relacionado al Protocolo de Nagoya de 2010. Lo anterior permite definir la forma en que los Estados no sólo interpretan las normas jurídicas internacionales en sus relaciones jurídicas mutuas, los derechos y obligaciones derivados (por ejemplo, en el Protocolo de Nagoya) sino cómo lo integran en su legislación interna aplicando esta norma jurídica e interpretándola en sistemas jurídicos nacionales. Ello permite ver el grado de cumplimiento o incumplimiento de las normas jurídicas y la comparación de las formas de interpretación de conceptos o palabras como "Justicia" y "Equidad" cuando dividen "beneficio" términos no definidos previamente y generalmente confundidos.
- Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Non-state actors and self-defence: a relook at the UN Charter Article 51
- Anjali Sugadev, India’s critical position in the global submarine cable network: an analysis of Indian law and practice on cable repairs
- A. Jayagovind, Missing the wood for the trees: a critique of the WTO ruling in India: solar cells and modules
- Utpal Kumar Raha & K. D. Raju, The Enrica Lexie case at the permanent court of arbitration: an analysis
- Michael G. Kearney, On the Situation in Palestine and the War Crime of Transfer of Civilians into Occupied Territory
- Mathias Holvoet, The Continuing Relevance of the Hybrid or Internationalized Justice Model: The Example of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers
- Marek Nowicki, Christine Chinkin, & Françoise Tulkens, Final Report of the Human Rights Advisory Panel
- Caleb H. Wheeler, Right or Duty? Is the Accused’s Presence at Trial a Right or a Duty Under International Criminal Law?
- S.M. Solaiman & Lars Bo Langsted, Crimes Committed by Directors Attributed to Corporations – Why Should Directors be Accessory?: Viewing through the Complicity Rules in Common Law
- Of direct effect, primacy and constitutional identities: Rome and Luxembourg enmeshed in the Taricco case
- Introduced by Antonello Tancredi
- Davide Paris, Carrot and Stick. The Italian Constitutional Court’s Preliminary Reference in the Case Taricco
- Giacomo Rugge, The Italian Constitutional Court on Taricco: Unleashing the normative potential of ‘national identity’?