- Sienho Yee, Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 7)—The Upcoming Separation of the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion: Between the Court’s Participation in the UN’s Work on Decolonization and the Consent Principle in International Dispute Settlement
- Kennedy Gastorn, Defining the Imprecise Contours of Jus Cogens in International Law
- Masoud Zamani & Majid Nikouei, Intervention by Invitation, Collective Self-defence and the Enigma of Effective Control
- Karolina Wierczyńska & Andrzej Jakubowski, Individual Responsibility for Deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage: Contextualizing the ICC Judgment in the Al-Mahdi Case
- Jianjun Gao, Appointment of Arbitrators by the President of the ITLOS pursuant to Article 3 of Annex VII to the LOS Convention: Some Tentative Observations
- Kaijun Pan, A Re-Examination of Estoppel in International Jurisprudence
- Chronology of Practice
- Qisheng He, Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2016
Saturday, February 3, 2018
- Justin George, State Failure and Transnational Terrorism: An Empirical Analysis
- Andre Rossi de Oliveira, João Ricardo Faria, & Emilson C. D. Silva, Transnational Terrorism: Externalities and Coalition Formation
- Kerstin Fisk, One-sided Violence in Refugee-hosting Areas
- Michael Albertus, Thomas Brambor, & Ricardo Ceneviva, Land Inequality and Rural Unrest: Theory and Evidence from Brazil
- Jaclyn Johnson & Clayton L. Thyne, Squeaky Wheels and Troop Loyalty: How Domestic Protests Influence Coups d’état, 1951–2005
- Kenju Kamei, Promoting Competition or Helping the Less Endowed? Distributional Preferences and Collective Institutional Choices under Intragroup Inequality
- Nicholas Sambanis, Micha Germann, & Andreas Schädel, SDM: A New Data Set on Self-determination Movements with an Application to the Reputational Theory of Conflict
Friday, February 2, 2018
Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories addresses the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity in some of the most difficult decolonization cases in international law. It investigates historical cases, such as Hong Kong and the French and Portuguese territories in India, as well as cases that remain very much alive today, such as the Western Sahara, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and the Chagos Islands. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of colonial territories that are, or have been, the subject of adverse third-party claims, invariably by their neighbouring states. Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories takes a contextual, historical approach to mapping the existing law and will be of interest to international lawyers, as well as scholars of international relations and students of the history of decolonization.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
The idea of justice occupies an ill-defined space within international law, both as an ideal that is quite distinct from the law itself and that international law should not be specifically concerned with and as a structuring force. Thinking about the justice of international law raises disciplinary and methodological dilemmas. International justice can be understood as merely the sort of justice that is produced institutional by international jurisdictions, a limited meaning that has nonetheless evolved considerably as a result of international law's own evolutions and that provides a first rough map as to where might one locate justice within international law. Rather than international lawyers extrapolating about the sort of justice that courts, in fact, produce, one can alternatively think of international justice as a branch of political theory looking from the outside at the sort of arrangements that international law promotes, not just judicially but most importantly substantively. Not all theories of justice are interested in how actual international law works, but some are. Classical international lawyers may find some affinity with the more statist and communitarian oriented forms of theorizing about international justice. Finally, a number of thinkers operating at the intersection of law and philosophy have sought to conceptualize the justice of international law starting not from ideal theories of justice but the actual practice of international law. Although this can be a methodologically fraught exercise that can end up in an apology of the morality of international law, it is also one that takes the specificity of international legal justice outputs seriously and seeks to understand international law on its own terms.
The emergence and proliferation of informal means of co-operation has challenged the monopoly of traditional forms of international law-making. This shift to informality has forced modern international legal scholarship to rethink whether, and if so to what extent, the international legal order can adapt to and assimilate the sweeping changes on the international plane. Different accounts of how the discipline ought to come to terms with the phenomenon of informal international law have been offered; however, these often tend to neglect the practice of the EU and its principal judicial organ. In this light, the present contribution purports to examine how the CJEU has treated informal law in its practice with a view to ascertaining the Court’s contribution to the continuing development of the doctrine of international law-making. The main argument advanced here is that the CJEU has recourse to a range of tools for factoring in new social developments, while keeping clear boundaries between law and non-law. It is asserted that current theorizing on the topic should engage more strongly in this practice since it attests to international law’s ability to cope with informality, thereby lending normative and explanatory force to theoretical approaches that insist on retaining the distinction between law and non-law.
- Reinhard Mehring, Carl Schmitts Schrift “Die Lage der europäischen Rechtswissenschaft”
- Armin von Bogdandy, Das Öffentliche im Völkerrecht im Lichte von Schmitts “Begriff des Politischen”
- Mads Andenas, The Systemic Relevance of “Judicial Decisions” in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute
- Renren Gong, China and CAT – From Implementation Issues to Institutional Analyses
- Matthias Hartwig, Bericht zur völkerrechtlichen Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahr 2013
Internationale Institutionen agieren und regieren mehr denn je durch Informationen und Wissen. Dabei geraten ihre Informationsbeziehungen zu Staaten und Individuen in den Fokus politischer und rechtlicher Auseinandersetzungen. Das institutionelle Völkerrecht birgt daher ein bislang nicht systematisch erfasstes Regelungs- und Forschungsfeld: das Informationsverwaltungsrecht internationaler Institutionen. Michael Riegner entfaltet dessen dogmatische Strukturen, allgemeine Prinzipien und interdisziplinäre Kontexte exemplarisch anhand des Rechts internationaler Entwicklungsinstitutionen. Er schlägt einen rechtswissenschaftlichen Zugriff auf Global Governance vor, der das internationale Verwaltungsrecht nicht nur rechtssetzungs- und gerichtsbezogen, sondern auch informationsbasiert konzeptioniert.
International institutions increasingly govern (by) information and knowledge. Michael Riegner offers the first systematic analysis of the legal rules and principles applicable to such global information governance. In the context of debates about Global Administrative Law and international transparency, this book proposes a new way of thinking about Global Governance and international institutional law.
- Joana Mendes & Ingo Venzke, Introducing the Idea of Relative Authority
- Susan Rose-Ackerman, Democratic Legitimacy and Executive Rule-making: Positive Political Theory in Comparative Public Law
- Eoin Carolan & Deirdre Curtin, In Search of a New Model of Checks and Balances for the EU: Beyond Separation of Powers
- Mikael Rask Madsen, Bolstering Authority by Enhancing Communication: How Checks and Balances and Feedback Loops can Strengthen the Authority of the European Court of Human Rights
- Jochen von Bernstorff, Authority Monism in International Organisations: A Historical Sketch
- Andreas von Staden, No Institution is an Island: Checks and Balances in Global Governance
- Bruno De Witte, The Role of the Court of Justice in Shaping the Institutional Balance in the EU
- Joseph Corkin, Refining Relative Authority: The Judicial Branch in the New Separation of Powers
- Dominique Ritleng, Judicial Review of EU Administrative Discretion: How Far Does the Separation of Powers Matter?
- Chantal Mak, First or Second Best? Judicial Law-making in European Private Law
- Maurizia De Bellis, Relative Authority in Global and EU Financial Regulation: Linking the Legitimacy Debates
- Diane A Desierto, Relative Authority and Institutional Decision-making in World Trade Law and International Investment Law
Lesaffer: The Lore and Laws of Peace-Making in Early-Modern and 19th-Century European Peace Treaties
As the works of Gentili and Vattel exemplify, the writers of the law of nations of the 16th to 18th centuries largely construed the legal conception of peace on the basis of their conception of war. The nature of peace was dictated by the nature of war. In this, their theories gelled with peace treaty practice. Whereas some of the dualistic logic of the justice and legality of war transpired in the twin pair of amnesty and restitution clauses, early modern peace treaties were designed to deal with the consequences of war under the conception of legal war. They were founded on the assumption that all belligerents had a right to wage the war and equally enjoyed the protection and benefits of the laws of war. This created space to disregard claims of right and justice and negotiate a compromise without having to heed too many legal constraints with relation to pre-existing rights and claims. The triumph of legal over just war in peace treaties, albeit not in the discourse of the justification of war itself, was a logical consequence of the ascendancy of the sovereign state.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
- From the Editors
- Robert Kolb, Gotovina and the ICTY
- Benedikt Pirker, Vorgaben des EU-Binnenmarktrechts fur Massnahmen Zur Forderung Erneuerbarer Energie und die Schweiz
- Veronique Boillet & Hajime Akiyama, Statelessness and International Surrogacy from the International and European Legal Perspectives
- Stephan Breitenmoser Chiara Piras, Europe v. USA: Different Standards and Procedures in Human Rights Protection
- Petros C. Mavroidis & Edwin Vermulst, The Case for Dropping Preferential Rules of Origin
- Michael E. S. Hoffman, Principles for Post-War International Economic Cooperation
- Thomas Voland & Shona Daly, The EU Regulation on Conflict Minerals: The Way Out of a Vicious Cycle?
- Alessandro Antimiani & Lucian Cernat, Liberalizing Global Trade in Mode 5 Services: How Much Is It Worth?
- Rudolf Adlung & Hamid Mamdouh, Plurilateral Trade Agreements: An Escape Route for the WTO?
- Erin Hannah, Amy Janzwood, James Scott, & Rorden Wilkinson, What Kind of Civil Society? The Changing Complexion of Public Engagement at the WTO
- Onsando Osiemo, Saving Africa: The GMO Cold War and the Battle for Africa
- Julien Chaisse & Mitsuo Matsushita, China’s ‘Belt And Road’ Initiative: Mapping the World Trade Normative and Strategic Implications
- Domestic Sources of China's International Behavior
- Kai Quek & Alastair Iain Johnston, Can China Back Down? Crisis De-escalation in the Shadow of Popular Opposition
- M. Taylor Fravel, Shifts in Warfare and Party Unity: Explaining China's Changes in Military Strategy
- Christopher Darnton, Archives and Inference: Documentary Evidence in Case Study Research and the Debate over U.S. Entry into World War II
- Lise Morjé Howard & Alexandra Stark, How Civil Wars End: The International System, Norms, and the Role of External Actors
- Ruolin Su, Alexander B. Downes, & Lindsey A. O'Rourke, Reconsidering the Outcomes of Foreign-Imposed Regime Change
- Michael J. Boyle, Michael C. Horowitz, Sarah E. Kreps, & Matthew Fuhrmann, Debating Drone Proliferation
- Tongfi Kim, Keren Yarhi-Milo, Alexander Lanoszka, & Zack Cooper, Arms, Alliances, and Patron-Client Relationships
- The Global Forum
- Gerald Steinberg & Becca Wertman Value Clash: Civil Society, Foreign Funding, and National Sovereignty
- Kjølv Egeland, Banning the Bomb: Inconsequential Posturing or Meaningful Stigmatizaton?
- Matthew Louis Bishop & Andrew F. Cooper, The FIFA Scandal and the Distorted Influence of Small States
- Julie Gibson, ASEAN and Regional Responses to the Problem(s) of Land Grabbing
- ·Arie M. Kacowicz, Regional Governance and Global Governance: Links and Explanations
- Natalie Ralph & Linda Hancock, Exploring the Role of Alternative Energy Corporations in Ethical Supply Chains and Corporate Peacebuilding
- Steven D. Roper, Applying Universal Jurisdiction to Civil Cases: Variations in State Approaches to Monetizing Human Rights Violations
- Ian M. Hartshorn, Global Labor and the Arab Uprisings: Picking Winners in Tunisia and Egypt
- Paul Alois, Lessons for Effective Governance: An Examination of the Better Work Program
- Subsequent practice in treaty interpretation between Article 31 and Article 32 of the Vienna Convention
- Introduced by Béatrice I. Bonafé and Paolo Palchetti
- Stefan Kadelbach, International Law Commission and role of subsequent practice as a means of interpretation under Articles 31 and 32 VCLT
- Hervé Ascencio, Faut-il mettre la pratique dans des catégories? (à propos des travaux de la CDI sur l’interprétation des traités dans le temps)
The Charter and the African human rights regime are surveyed in four parts. Part One shows various historical, social and political factors canvassing the movement towards institutionalised international protection of human rights in Africa which further influenced travaux préparatoires preceding the adoption of the Charter. This part also demonstrates that the interplay of such factors decisively determined the wording of the substantive and procedural provisions of the treaty.
Detailed technical parameters of the said regime are presented in Part Two which discusses a vast array of problems connected with the application of the Charter ratione personae, ratione loci and ratione temporis. This part also covers the implementation of the international human rights in Africa presenting the Charter from the perspective of domestic courts and their jurisprudence.
Part Three contains an in-depth presentation of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights elaborating on its structure, organization, protective mandate, promotional mandate and competence to interpret the Charter. A comprehensive and detailed analysis of the vast Commission's jurisprudence discloses its efforts to overcome institutional and procedural obstacles and to contribute effectively to the development of international human rights law in Africa.
As the Commission had not managed to achieve the aims in their entirety, the African Union decided to establish the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights to supplement the protective mandate of the pre-existing non-judicial body. Hence, Part Four presents the structure, organization and competences of the Court further discussing the problem of complementarity of the Court and the Commission.
The Final Remarks accentuate the conclusion that from the institutional perspective the African human rights system anno Domini 2017 though well established, remains still in flux. In particular, the relation between the Court and the Commission (and at the same time the dynamics of the institutional protection of human rights in Africa) may alter in the future depending on the outcomes of the ongoing reform of the Court supervised by the African Union as well as on the synergy between the organs. The Final Remarks also highlight some selected general dilemmas concerning the African system that still require closer scientific attention.
The phenomenon of human shields challenges many of the core tenets of IHL, including its careful dialectic between the imperatives of humanity and military necessity. Although the concepts of distinction, precaution, and proportionality are well-established in the abstract, any consensus on how these rules apply to situations involving human shields is showing signs of fraying. The IHL literature now offers competing approaches for evaluating the legal consequences surrounding the use of human shields for both the party that stands to benefit from the presence of the shields and for the party seeking to engage the military objective being shielded. In particular, the application of the rules of distinction and proportionality has become the subject of intense debate about whether human shields are entitled to the full panoply of civilian protections when it comes to targeting? This emerging legal indeterminacy is being strategically generated and increasingly deployed by a range of implicated actors and norm entrepreneurs in an effort to loosen the restrictions on targeting, to excuse civilian deaths, and to shield armed actors from legal responsibility — all to the detriment of civilian protection.
These dilemmas undergird this chapter. After distinguishing various forms of human shielding and setting out the operative legal framework in treaty and customary international law, this chapter evaluates the various legal and policy arguments that have emerged to address the phenomenon of human shielding. These arguments are grounded in theories about what it means to directly participate in hostilities, how proportionality should be calculated when human shields are present in a battlespace, and what role hostile intent as well as actual or apparent agency on the part of the shields themselves should play in targeting decisions. The chapter then recommends a way forward by concluding that the safest course for parties truly committed to the values underlying IHL is to adopt a policy that treats all human shields as civilians when it comes to the calculation of potential collateral damage, unless there is irrefutable proof of willing participation in hostilities.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Does multilateralism have a life-cycle? Perhaps paradoxically, this essay suggests that current pressures on multilateralism and multilateral institutions, including threatened withdrawals by the United Kingdom from the European Union, the United States from the Paris climate change agreement, South Africa, Burundi, and Gambia from the International Criminal Court, and others, may be natural symptoms of those institutions’ relative success. Successful multilateralism and multilateral institutions, this essay argues, has four intertwined effects, which together, make continued multilateralism more difficult: (1) the wider dispersion of wealth or power among members, (2) the decreasing value for members of issue linkages, (3) changing assessment of multilateral institutions’ value in the face of increased effectiveness, and (4) members’ increased focus on relative or positional gains over absolute ones. Exploring how each of these manifests in the world today, this essay suggests that current stresses on multilateralism may best be understood as the natural growing pains of an increasingly mature set of institutions. The open question going forward is what form the next stage of development will take. Will strategies of multilateralism continue or will they be replaced by smaller clubs and more local approaches?
Are human rights really a building block of global constitutionalism? Does global constitutionalism have any future in the theory and practice of international law and global governance? This book critically examines these key questions by focusing on the mechanisms utilised by global constitutionalism whilst comparing the historical functioning of constitutional rights in national systems. Yahyaoui Krivenko provides new insights into the workings of human rights and associated notions, such as the state, the political, and the individual, by demonstrating that human rights are antithetical to global constitutionalism and encouraging new discussions on the meaning of global constitutionalism and human rights. Drawing on the interdisciplinary works of such thinkers as Agamben, Luhmann, Bourdieu, Deleuze and Guattari, this book also considers practical examples from historical experience of ancient Greek and early Islamic societies.
Asche: Die Margin of Appreciation: Entwurf einer Dogmatik monokausaler richterlicher Zurückhaltung für den europäischen Menschenrechtsschutz
Das Buch untersucht mit der Margin of Appreciation eine der bekanntesten und doch umstrittensten Rechtsfiguren der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte.Es entwickelt eine schlüssige Kritik ihrer bisherigen dogmatischen Fassung und zugleich einen praktisch anschlussfähigen Vorschlag für eine Neuaufstellung der überkommenen Doktrin. Bestehende kritische Ansätze des bisherigen Schrifttums werden aufgearbeitet, weiterentwickelt und mit besonderer Konsequenz angewandt.Die Autorin wählt dabei einen methodischen Zugriff auf mittlerer Abstraktionshöhe, der es ermöglicht, sowohl die konkrete Rechtsprechungspraxis zu berücksichtigen, als diese auch mit abstrakten, vornehmlich demokratietheoretischen Einwänden zu konfrontieren. Durch eine radikale Reduktion derjenigen Faktoren, die nach überkommener Auffassung für Übung und Umfang richterlicher Zurückhaltung maßgeblich sind, wird die Margin of Appreciation im Ergebnis entschieden verschlankt und rationalisiert.
The prosecutor appears to be one of the key components of the judicial and institutional structure of the International Criminal Court. As such, he has broad prosecutorial discretion in the selection of situations and cases, on the one hand, and in the collection and administration of evidence, on the other. Firstly, it is at the prosecutor’s discretion to select situations in which investigations will be carried out. Similarly, once a case has been referred to him or when he has initiated an investigation in a situation in which it appears that crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction have been committed, it is once again within the Prosecutor’s discretion to select the crimes and the individuals on which he intends to focus his investigation and prosecution. His choices in this regard are therefore liable to criticism. The prosecutor’s power in the selection of situations, investigations and prosecution is not subject to sufficient scrutiny by the judges. This lack of judicial scrutiny of the prosecutor’s discretion leads to some unjustifiable failures.
Secondly, the ways in which evidence is collected and managed have to conform to rules that are clearly identified in the Rome Statute and which are intended to guarantee the rights of the accused and the preservation of a fair trial. The prosecutor’s failures, namely when he does not investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally, can irremediably hamper the establishment of the truth. These failures, which are not always the result of the prosecutor’s wilful choices, can be an obstacle to the principle of equality of arms and can also compromise the accused’s capacity to properly prepare his defence. Furthermore, in terms of the administration of evidence, the difficulties encountered in communicating evidence may lead to similar consequences that will, in any case, prevent a fair trial.
These failures can, to some extent, be attributed to the prosecutor. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the Rome Statute and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence are equivocal on certain issues and, as such, can be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the aims and values encapsulated in the spirit of the Statute. In the same vein, the prosecutor, as an actor operating in an international context, is subject to pressures that have an impact on the efficiency of his actions. In implementing these actions, the prosecutor can also encounter some difficulties due to a variety of factors, such as a lack of cooperation among states.
- Christina J. Schneider & Branislav L. Slantchev, The Domestic Politics of International Cooperation: Germany and the European Debt Crisis
- Nathan M. Jensen & Edmund J. Malesky, Nonstate Actors and Compliance with International Agreements: An Empirical Analysis of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
- Lise Morjé Howard & Anjali Kaushlesh Dayal, The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping
- Manuel Vogt, Ethnic Stratification and the Equilibrium of Inequality: Ethnic Conflict in Postcolonial States
- Michael C. Horowitz, Evan Perkoski, & Philip B.K. Potter, Tactical Diversity in Militant Violence
- Jason Ralph, What Should Be Done? Pragmatic Constructivist Ethics and the Responsibility to Protect
- Research Notes
- Megan A. Stewart, Civil War as State-Making: Strategic Governance in Civil War
- Mark S. Bell & Kai Quek, Authoritarian Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace
Monday, January 29, 2018
Das Buch versucht, zu einem besseren Verständnis des Strukturwandels des Völkerrechts beizutragen. Zu diesem Zweck entwirft es ein Prinzipienmodell des Völkerrechts, mit dem sich die völkerrechtlichen Entwicklungen, an die die Strukturwandelthese anknüpft, theoretisch erklären und dogmatisch erfassen lassen. Es weist nach, dass die Regeln des Völkerrechts in normativer Hinsicht auf völkerrechtlichen Grundprinzipien aufbauen, zeigt, dass der Bestand dieser Prinzipien wächst und analysiert, inwieweit das Aufkommen neuer Völkerrechtsprinzipien das Verständnis bestehender Völkerrechtsregeln beeinflusst. Ausgehend hiervon plädiert das Werk dafür, die Erscheinungen des völkerrechtlichen Strukturwandels als Konsequenz von Veränderungen im Bestand völkerrechtlicher Grundprinzipien zu verstehen. An Fallstudien aus unterschiedlichen Teilbereichen des Völkerrechts wird die Theorie abschließend erprobt.
- Y.K. Brian Sang, Horizontal Application of Constitutional Rights in Kenya: A Comparative Critique of the Emerging Jurisprudence
- Njem Iboum Pierre Barry, Conception Generique de l'Arbitrage en Droit International, Mecanisme de Reglement des Differends
- Stephen Kingah, Legal Treatment of Boko Haram Militants Captured by Cameroon
- Imran Smith, Promoting Commercial Agriculture in Nigeria Through a Reform of the Legal and Institutional Frameworks
- Jeremy Sarkin, The Need to Reform the Political Role of the African Union in Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Domestic States: Making States More Accountable and Less Able to Avoid Scrutiny at the United Nations and at the African Union, Using Swaziland to Spotlight the Issues
- Tomasz P. Milej, Human Rights Protection by International Courts – What Role for the East African Court of Justice?
- Estian Botes & Henk Kloppers, Insurable Interest as a Requirement for Insurance Contracts: A Comparative Analysis
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Foreign investment is perceived as one of the most significant factors for development and it is no accident that a key criterion for determining that an activity qualifies as an investment under the ICSID Convention is whether it contributes to the economic or other development of the host state. Investment tribunals have in recent years examined both the ambit of regulatory powers of the host state in taking measures in response to an existing debt crisis, and the impact of a negotiated sovereign debt restructuring on the rights of non-cooperative creditors. In both respects, investment tribunals have not conclusively, or unanimously, linked socio-economic rights with investment protection. This chapter examines the sovereign debt-related awards of investment tribunals and suggests how the systemic integration of investment law and human rights might prevent investment arbitration from distorting economically and socially beneficial sovereign debt restructurings and other regulatory measures in the context of sovereign debt crises.
L'interdiction de l'esclavage constitue une norme fondamentale du droit international contemporain : figurant dans les principaux instruments de protection des droits de l'homme, elle est souvent citée comme une obligation dont le respect intéresse la communauté internationale dans son ensemble.
La présente étude s'intéresse aux origines de cette interdiction, telle que reflétée par la pratique étatique et discutée par la doctrine, avant l'émergence d'une garantie internationale des droits de l'individu à la suite de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.
Elle rappelle qu'au XIXe siècle et pendant la première moitié du XXe siècle, l'affirmation d'un droit international antiesclavagiste était étroitement liée à l'idée, à la fois généreuse et autoritaire, de « civilisation ». Comme le montre la présente étude, le contenu matériel de ce droit dépendait, en particulier, de la capacité des États occidentaux de se définir eux-mêmes, par rapport au reste du monde, comme des « nations civilisées ».
Aujourd'hui largement discréditée et dépourvue de valeur normative, la notion de « nations civilisées » dut en effet sa première apparition en droit international positif à la « Déclaration des Puissances sur l'abolition de la traite des Nègres » du 8 février 1815. Adoptée dans le cadre du Congrès de Vienne, celle-ci fut également le premier instrument international proclamant une obligation générale de mettre fin à certaines pratiques esclavagistes - en l'occurrence, à la déportation de captifs africains comme esclaves.
Or, bien que le principe antiesclavagiste proclamé en 1815 fût progressivement traduit en normes internationales et internes de plus en plus exigeantes, les modalités de sa mise en oeuvre, tout comme sa portée exacte, ne cessèrent de faire l'objet de contestations et d'interrogations tout au long de la période considérée. Une question récurrente fut ainsi de savoir si une « nation civilisée » ayant formellement aboli l'institution esclavagiste pouvait être accusée d'avoir violé le droit international antiesclavagiste en tolérant ou en imposant certaines formes de travail forcé. Ce n'est finalement qu'en 1945, au terme d'une remise en cause sans précédent de l'idée même de « civilisation », que les signataires du Statut de Nuremberg adoptèrent le premier instrument conventionnel y apportant une réponse positive.
- Robert French, Preface
- Luke Nottage, Julien Chaisse & Sakda Thanitcul, International Investment Treaties and Arbitration Across Asia: A Bird’s Eye View
- Shiro Armstrong, The Impact of Investment Treaties and ISDS Provisions on FDI in Asia and Globally
- Jason Webb Yackee, Do Investment Treaties Work – In the Land of Smiles?
- Luke Nottage & Sakda Thanitcul, International Investment Arbitration in Thailand: Limiting Contract-based Claims While Maintaining Treaty-based ISDS
- Antony Crockett, The Termination of Indonesia’s BITs: Changing the Bathwater, but Keeping the Baby?
- Mahdev Mohan, The European Union’s Free Trade Agreement with Singapore – One Step Forward, 28 Steps Back?
- Sufian Jusoh, Muhammad Faliq Abd Razak & Mohamad Azim Mazlan, Malaysia and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Learning from Experience
- Anselmo Reyes, FDI in the Philippines and the Pitfalls of Economic Nationalism
- Nguyen Manh Dzung & Nguyen Thi Thu Trang, International Investment Dispute Resolution in Vietnam: Opportunities and Challenges
- Romesh Weeramantry, International Investment Law and Practice in the Kingdom of Cambodia: An Evolving ‘Rule Taker’?
- Jonathan Bonnitcha, International Investment Arbitration in Myanmar: Bounded Rationality, but Not as We Know It
- Romesh Weeramantry & Mahdev Mohan, International Investment Arbitration in Laos: Large Issues for a Small State
- Bruno Jetin & Julien Chaisse, International Investment Policy of Small States: The Case of Brunei
- Sungjoon Cho & Jürgen Kurtz, The Limits of Isomorphism: Global Investment Law and the asean Investment Regime
- Amokura Kawharu & Luke Nottage, Foreign Investment Regulation and Treaty Practice in New Zealand and Australia: Getting it Together in the Asia-Pacific?
- Joongi Kim, Korea’s International Investment Agreements: Policy at the Contours
- Tomoko Ishikawa, A Japanese Perspective on International Investment Agreements: Recent Developments
- Julien Chaisse, China’s International Investment Policy: Formation, Evolution, and Transformation(s)
- Prabhash Ranjan & Pushkar Anand, Investor State Dispute Settlement in the 2016 Indian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty: Does it Go Too Far?
- Leon Trakman, An Empirical Case for Extending Standing Panels in Investor-State Arbitration
- Donald Robertson, Governance and International Investment Treaties for Asia: A Principled Approach to Assessing Regulatory Action
This essay examines the role of international law is in promoting indirectly global (and domestic) distributive justice. This focus on institutions and processes at the global level is grounded on the assumption that questions of the just allocation and reallocation of resources are ultimately resolved through processes of public deliberation or open contestation (including through the involvement of courts). I argue that the key to approaching a more just allocation of resources is by addressing the democratic deficits that underlie the skewed distribution (or the lack of redistribution) of assets and opportunities. My claim is that international law can play a role in the political empowerment of weak constituencies (within and between states). In doing so, international law can indirectly shape the distribution and redistribution of resources, in a manner that is more dignified and preferable to handing them charitable contributions. Just like the empowerment of labor by the freedom of association, legal intervention that empowers disadvantaged communities will not only increase their bargaining power, but also enable them to function as agents rather than as charity recipients.