Saturday, March 31, 2018
- The Evolving Role of the United Nations Security Council and the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Event of Armed Conflict
- Introduced by Sabrina Urbinati
- Kristin Hausler, Cultural heritage and the Security Council: Why Resolution 2347 matters
- Andrzej Jakubowski, Resolution 2347: Mainstreaming the protection of cultural heritage at the global level
Friday, March 30, 2018
The fight against impunity has become a growing concern of the international community. Updated in 2005, the UN Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity is the fruit of several years of study, developed under the aegis of the UN Commission on Human Rights and then affirmed by the Human Rights Council. These Principles are today widely accepted as constituting an authoritative reference point for efforts in the fight against impunity for gross human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law. As a comprehensive attempt to codify universal accountability norms, the UN Set of Principles marks a significant step forward in the debate on the obligation of states to combat impunity in its various forms.
Through an in-depth case study, Some Kind of Justice offers fresh insights about two questions now the subject of robust debate: What goals can we plausibly assign to international criminal tribunals? What factors determine the impact of distant courts on societies that have seen vicious violence? The book offers a timely and original account of how an international war crimes tribunal affects local communities, and the factors that shape its changing impact over time. It explores the influence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), launched in 1993 by the UN Security Council at the height of ethnic conflict accompanying the breakup of Yugoslavia, in two countries directly affected by its work. One, Bosnia-Herzegovina, experienced soaring levels of ethnic violence, culminating in the 1995 genocide in Srebrenica. The wartime government of the other country, Serbia, plunged the region into conflict. Scheduled to close at the end of 2017, the ICTY is the longest-running war crimes tribunal in history, and thus offers an incomparably rich case study of how a Nuremberg-inspired tribunal influences societies emerging from ruinous violence.
The intersection of cultural heritage and State immunity raises intriguing questions of international law and policy. Indeed, as applied to cultural heritage property, State immunity may yield contradictory outcomes. On the one hand, it may bar access to justice by the rightful owners of cultural property bringing restitution claims against foreign States, thereby potentially interfering with the global interest in the suppression of the illicit trafficking of cultural objects. On the other hand, it may advance the international community’s interest in transnational cultural cooperation and mobility of art collections, by shielding cultural heritage property from suits that are often times unrelated to restitution claims, such as suits arising from State breaches of investment obligations or violations of human rights.
Since my earlier contribution on the law and practice concerning cultural heritage and State immunity (‘Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of International Cultural Property Law’, in F Francioni & J Gordley (eds), Enforcing International Cultural Heritage Law (OUP 2013) 79), a variety of developments have occurred. Law-making processes have been undertaken under the auspices of the Council of Europe and the International Law Association, as well as by a number of States. Several high-profile judicial disputes challenging State immunity for cultural property are still pending and others have arisen, especially in the context of the United States Nazi-looted art litigation. This chapter reviews such developments and seeks to identify trends and prospects.
Section II examines State immunity from jurisdiction and the applicability of its exceptions to cases involving cultural property. Section III covers immunity from execution for State cultural property by focusing on the pertinent legal instruments and extensive practice in this area. It discusses the existence and scope of a customary rule of immunity from seizure for cultural heritage property, especially artworks on loan. A brief conclusion follows (section IV).
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Does international law apply to cyberspace, preserving cybersecurity, ensuring the free flow of information, and protecting the rights of users? For many, a positive answer is self-evident. As the experts who produced the Tallinn Manuals 1.0 and 2.0 have explained, “Cyberspace” is located in cyber infrastructure located on states’ territory and is operated by individuals subject to state authority and responsibility. There are several examples of states that can and do control cyberspace when it suits them. But what may seem self-evident appears to have been challenged recently by key state actors who refuse to acknowledge this premise and instead promote the assertion that cyberspace is a dimension that is not governed by international law. The June 2017 meeting of the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security exposed a fundamental disagreement on the question of international law’s applicability to states’ use of cyberspace.
- Trump’s Trade Policy
- Chang-fa Lo, Preface for the AJWH’s Special Issue on President Trump’s Trade Policy – Proper Assessment of the Possible Disruption to the Status Quo
- Chang-fa Lo, To Lead or not to Lead – Reverting President Trump’s Retreat from United States’ Traditional Leading Role in Promoting Human Rights Through Trade
- Deborah Elms & Bhargav Sriganesh, Trump’s Trade Policy: Discerning Between Rhetoric and Reality
- Fernando Dias Simões, Making Trade Policy Great Again: What Policymakers Should Learn from Trump’s Election
- Andrew D. Mitchell & Emma Gan, Policy & Legal Issues Raised by the Proposed U.S. Border Adjustable Tax
- Tsai-fang Chen, To Judge the “Self-Judging” Security Exception Under the GATT 1994 – A Systematic Approach
- Ching-Wen Hsueh, Undeniable Obligations to Gaia: U.S. Remaining Investment Obligations After Its Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
- Tomohiko Kobayashi, Revisiting the Legal Nature of “Un-Signing” an Unratified Treaty: Broader Implications of U.S.’ Withdrawal from the TPP
- Junji Nakagawa, TPP-11 as a Means to Revive the TPP After U.S.’ Withdrawal
- Jaemin Lee, Skepticism, Unilateralism or Ultimatumism?: Trump Administration’s Trade Policy and the Korea–U.S. FTA
- Special Issue: Children and R2P
- Luke Glanville, Children and R2P: An Introduction
- Jeremy Shusterman & Michelle Godwin, ‘Children Heard, Half-Heard?’: A Practitioner’s Look for Children in the Responsibility to Protect and Normative Agendas on Protection in Armed Conflict
- Katrina Lee-Koo, ‘The Intolerable Impact of Armed Conflict on Children’: The United Nations Security Council and the Protection of Children in Armed Conflict
- Cecilia Jacob, R2P and the Prevention of Mass Atrocities: A Child-Centric Approach
- Jochen Prantl & Ryoko Nakano, The Politics of Norm Glocalisation: Limits in Applying r2p to Protecting Children
- Jana Tabak & Letícia Carvalho, Responsibility to Protect the Future: Children on the Move and the Politics of Becoming
- Erin Goheen Glanville, R2P and the Novel: The Trope of the Abandoned Refugee Child in Stella Leventoyannis Harvey’s The Brink of Freedom
- J. Marshall Beier, Ultimate Tests: Children, Rights, and the Politics of Protection
- Timea Spitka, Children on the Front Lines: Responsibility to Protect in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
- Myriam Denov & Atim Angela Lakor, Post-War Stigma, Violence and ‘Kony Children’: The Responsibility to Protect Children Born in Lord’s Resistance Army Captivity in Northern Uganda
- Dustin Johnson; Shelly Whitman & Hannah Sparwasser Soroka, Prevent to Protect: Early Warning, Child Soldiers, and the Case of Syria
- Bina D’Costa, Of Responsibilities, Protection, and Rights: Children’s Lives in Conflict Zones
- Jonathan Havercroft, Antje Wiener, Mattias Kumm, & Jeffrey L Dunoff, Editorial: Donald Trump as global constitutional breaching experiment
- Roni Mann, Non-ideal theory of constitutional adjudication
- Sujit Choudhry, Resisting democratic backsliding: An essay on Weimar, self-enforcing constitutions, and the Frankfurt School
- Ming-Sung Kuo, Politics and constitutional jurisgenesis: A cautionary note on political constitutionalism
- Ingolf Pernice, Global cybersecurity governance: A constitutionalist analysis
- Thibaut Fleury Graff, Les protections juridictionnelles de l'État-Unis : aperçu du droit et de la pratique américains suite à l'accord du 8 décembre 2014 relatif à l'indemnisation de certaines victimes de la Shoah départées depuis la France
- Mathias Forteau, Être ou ne pas être un État : la rôle du juge interne dans la détermnation de la qualité étatique d'entités étrangères
- Hélène De Porter, La Cour Internationale de Justice face à la question des biens mal acquis : à propos de l'ordonnance du 7 décembre 2016 rendue dans l'affaire des immunités et procédures pénales (Guinée équatoriale c. France)
- Nathalie Clarence, CIJ, certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) : construction d'une route au Costa-Rica de long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica)
- Nabil Hajjami, CIJ, obligations relatives à des négociations concernant la cessation de la course aux armes nucléaires et le désarmement nucléaire (Îles Marshall c. Inde, c. Pakistan et c. Royaume-Uni)
- Marine They, Les suites du différend maritime opposant le Nicaragua et la Colombie : les arrêts rendus par la Cour internationale de Justice le 17 mars 2016 (exceptions préliminaires)
- Geneviève Burdeau, L'arbitrage du Duzgit integrity : États archipels et opérations d'avitaillement en mer
- Emanuel Castellarin, La sentence partielle du 30 juin 2016 dans l'affaire du différend territorial et maritime entre la Croatie et la Slovénie
- Pierre-Franc̦ois Laval, L'affaire de la délimitation maritime Timor-Leste/Australie : première "conciliation obligatoire" engagée sur le fondement de la Convention de Montego Bay sur le Droit de la Mer
- Romain Le Bœuf, différend en mer de Chine méridionale (Philippines C. Chine) sentence arbitrale du 12 juillet 2016
- Baptiste Tranchant, Une nouvelle décision en l'affaire de l'"Enrica Lexie" : l'ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatioires du tribunal arbital du 29 avril 2016
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Modern trade agreements have come to include many and varied obligations for domestic regulation and administration. These treaty-based commitments aim primarily to improve the freedom of firms to operate in the global economy by aligning the ways in which governments regulate markets and private actors engage governments through administrative law. They strike at the core of how economies are ordered and entail important distributional questions. An increasingly prevalent and diverse—but hitherto largely neglected—type of treaty obligation prescribes specific procedures for domestic administrative decision-making. This Article frames such treaty requirements for regulatory procedures as instruments of remote control. They are negotiated for by government officials in strong states that seek to advance the interests of the commercial interests they take to represent. These commitments empower private actors—predominantly well-organized business interests—to directly use these procedures to pursue and defend their interests in other states. To make this case, the Article for the first time synthesizes McNollgast’s conception of regulatory procedures in the purely domestic context as instruments of political control and Putnam’s theorization of international treaty negotiations as a two-level game. By applying this new synthesis to trade agreements, the Article shows how procedural obligations can be designed to stack the deck to favor certain private interests and why treaty negotiators may find it easier to agree on procedures than substantive commitments. The Article uses its synthetic conception to explain the accelerating rise of procedural requirements in post-war international economic law and demonstrates its explanatory potential by analyzing the variation between strong regulatory procedures for intellectual property rights and weak procedural protections for the environment in the newly-revived Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- Andrea Caligiuri, Les conditions pour l'exercice de la fonction juridictionnelle par les cours et les tribunaux prévus dans la CNUDM
- S. El Boudouhi, Le droit international comparé. Mythe ou réalité
- Améyo Délali Kouassi, La protection internationale des personnes déplacées dans les conflits armés : quelques observations autour de la pratique de la cour européenne des droits de l'homme
- Olivier Peiffert, La recevabilité d'un recours en annulation devant les juridictions européennes au prisme des règles coutumières d'interprétation des traités. : Observations sous l'arrêt CJUE, 21 décembre 2016, Conseil c. Front Polisario, C-104/16 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:973
- Dossier : Les juridictions pénales internationalisées : un modèle de désillusion et de promesses
- O. Nederlandt & D. Scalia, Introduction
- M. Vianney-Liaud, La juridiction internationalisée des Chambres extraordinaires au sein des tribunaux cambodgiens
- É. Le Gall, & M. Lenormand, Les Chambres africaines extraordinaires du Sénégal ou les prémices d’une nouvelle génération de juridictions pénales internationalisées
- A. Kaboré, Les juridictions sénégalaises avaient-elles besoin de chambres extraordinaires pour poursuivre et juger Hissein Habré ?
- A. Aumaître, Le dossier de la procédure devant les juridictions pénales internationalisées
- J.-Fr. Akandjii-Kombé & C. Maia, La Cour pénale spéciale centrafricaine : les défis de la mise en place d’une justice pénale internationalisée en République centrafricaine
- C. Denis, Juridictions pénales « hybrides », un impact durable est-il possible ? Le cas de la Cour pénale spéciale en République centrafricaine
- J. Aparac, Les Chambres spécialisées pour le Kosovo et le Bureau du Procureur spécialisé : un échec de la communauté internationale
- M. Eudes & E. Guematcha, Quels apports des Chambres extraordinaires africaines ?
- M. Bortoluzzi, Faire des affaires avec le Diable. La contribution du Tribunal spécial pour la Sierra Leone en matière d’aide et encouragement
- J. Roux, La jurisprudence du Tribunal spécial pour la sierra Leone et des Chambres extraordinaires au sein des tribunaux cambodgiens relative à la définition du crime de mariage forcé, enrichissement ou morcellement du droit international pénal ?
- M.L. Cesoni, Le Tribunal spécial pour le Liban : de l’adhésion de principe au désenchantement
- R. Roth, Tribunal spécial sur le Liban : retour sur une expérience
- S. Smis & E.A. Cirimwami, Repenser la création fragmentée des juridictions hybrides en Afrique au profit de la Cour africaine de justice, des droits de l’homme et des peuples
- M. Alié, Cour pénale internationale et juridictions nationales mixtes ou hybrides : un mariage de raison ou la raison d’un mariage ?
The interaction between foreign direct investment (FDI) and human rights is without doubt one of the most contentious issues surrounding the contemporary regulation of FDI. They seem indeed, at first glance, to be relatively separate fields of international law. Traditionally, international investment treaties were silent on issues of human rights. The main multilateral investment treaties, the North American Fair Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), to name but a few, make no mention of human rights. Although states have since recently effectively included references to human rights norms in their bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the vast majority of contemporary BITs do not mention human rights. Yet, over the past decades, it has become evident that human rights issues interact in various ways with investment law.
Investors operating in a foreign state may themselves also be bound by certain human rights obligations existing mainly under the domestic laws of the host state in which the activity takes place, but also, sometimes, under the legislation of their home state based on a certain form of extraterritoriality. While such questions fall under the general issue of how to hold international corporations accountable for human rights violations, there is a recent tendency in investment agreement to add so-called ‘legality requirements’ which imply an obligation for foreign investors to conform to and respect the domestic laws of the host state – including the applicable human rights obligations. When such clause is added in an investment agreement, the essentially domestic law obligations of the foreign investor are somehow ‘internationalized’ in the sense that the non-respect of the obligations in respect of human rights under domestic law may – depending on the precise formulation of the treaty – impact the admissibility of claims based on the treaty, or the existence, for the purposes of the treaty, of a covered investment.
Human rights may come into play as matter of applicable law in treaty-based investment arbitrations. Here, a link must be made with the limited jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals established based on an investment treaty. Since the direct access of foreign investors to investment treaty arbitration is only accepted because it is part of the protection offered to the investor for claims arising out of the investment, the competence of the arbitral tribunal is at the same time limited to these types of disputes; but the limited scope of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal does not imply that the tribunal cannot as a matter of principle consider human rights issues raised by either party as applicable law. Absent any specific human rights-related rule in the treaty itself, which would render the application of human rights law straightforward, compromissory clauses in investment treaties usually contain broad applicable law clauses referring to the application, besides domestic law, of ‘international law’. Consequently, it cannot be excluded as a matter of principle that arbitral tribunals can engage with human rights law, quite the contrary.
Monday, March 26, 2018
- Joel P. Trachtman, WTO Trade and Environment Jurisprudence: Avoiding Environmental Catastrophe
- Valentina Vadi, International Law and Its Histories: Methodological Risks and Opportunities
- Kevin Jon Heller, What Is an International Crime? (A Revisionist History)
- Ryan Mitchell, Sovereignty and Normative Conflict: International Legal Realism as a Theory of Uncertainty
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Hsieh: Against Populist Isolationism: New Asian Regionalism and Global South Powers in International Economic Law
This article provides the most up-to-date examination of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which is poised to become the world’s largest free trade agreement (FTA). It argues that the 16-country mega-FTA will galvanize the paradigm shift in Asian regionalism and build a normative foundation for the Global South in international economic law. Based on intertwined theoretical and substantive claims, this article opens an inquiry into the assertive legalism of developing nations in the new regional economic order. It further manifests the pivotal force of emerging economies against populist isolationism in the Trump era that undermines the neoliberal foundation of global trade liberalization.
By analyzing the converging policies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China and India, the article first demonstrates the status of the RCEP in Asian powers’ contemporary FTA practice. In light of the ASEAN Economic Community, the new 11-member Trans-Pacific Partnership and EU FTAs with Singapore and Vietnam, caution should be given to the utilization of tariff preferences, services liberalization and investor-state dispute settlement. Finally, the article assesses the RCEP’s systemic impact on the legal fragmentation due to jurisdictional conflicts under trade and investment agreements. The consolidation of divergent trade rules and the pro-development operative mechanism will fortify the RCEP as a pathway to the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific and reinvigorate the multilateral trading system.
von Staden: Monitoring Second-Order Compliance: The Follow-Up Procedures of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies
International courts (ICs) have found themselves dealing with issues that are ‘political’ in nature. This article discusses the techniques of avoidance ICs have developed to navigate such highly political or sensitive issues. The first part discusses some of the key rationales for avoidance. Drawing on the discussion of the political question doctrine in US constitutional law, it shows how ICs may justify avoidance on both principled and pragmatic grounds. It then discusses the different types of avoidance strategies employed by ICs, based on examples from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the International Court of Justice and the East African Court of Justice. ICs are rarely upfront about avoidance strategies. Rather, ICs tend to avoid cases in a more subtle fashion, relying on procedural rules to exclude a case, or by resolving the dispute in a way that avoids the most politically sensitive questions and controversies.