Thursday, January 9, 2020
This fully revised new edition offers a comprehensive picture of the law of maritime delimitation, incorporating all new cases and State practice in this field. As with all types of law, the law of maritime delimitation should possess a degree of predictability. On the other hand, as maritime delimitation cases differ, flexible considerations of geographical and non-geographical factors are also required in order to achieve equitable results. How, then, is it possible to ensure predictability while taking into account a number of diverse factors in order to achieve an equitable result? This is the question at the heart of the law of maritime delimitation. This book explores a well-balanced legal framework that reconciles predictability and flexibility in the law of maritime delimitation by looking at three aspects of the question: first it reviews the evolution of the law of maritime delimitation; second, it undertakes a comparative study of the case law and State practice; and third, it critically assesses the law of maritime delimitation in its current form.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
This contribution examines whether, under which conditions the international law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law, IHL) generates individual rights, and against whom. These primary rights are distinct from secondary rights which may accrue from a relationship of responsibility between violator and victim in the event of a breach of a primary norm of IHL, and from procedural rights to a remedy in the sense of access to institutions deciding on individual claims to reparation.
Various provisions of IHL speak of “rights” of individuals on the primary level. Although some observers favour duties as the appropriate regulatory technique for achieving effective protection of humans, a reading of IHL which encompasses direct rights can be well explained and justified. The acknowledgment of rights has symbolic and practical consequences, notably for remedies, reparation, and waiver. A follow-up question is then against whom the IHL-based rights are opposable, who are the duty bearers. Overall, the recognition of IHL-based rights is helpful for steering IHL between the two evils of an overreach of human rights on the one side and a paternalist fixation on states on the other side.
Bartels: Balancing Prejudice: Fair Trial Rights and International Procedural Decisions Relating to Evidence
This paper, which will feature in an edited volume addressing the balancing of the rights of accused persons and of victims of crimes allegedly committed by these persons, discusses the concept of prejudice as concerns procedural matters relating to evidence in international criminal law, and before the International Criminal Court (ICC) specifically. When a (trial) chamber assesses the potential prejudice an action of a party to the proceedings or a procedural decision of the chamber will cause, it is effectively carrying out a balancing exercise, as it looks at the interest of the accused on one side and those of the Prosecution and/or victims on the other. The question is therefore when a matter, such as the admission of an item into evidence, is so prejudicial that is must be considered as is undue prejudice and thereby militating against admission. The present paper further discusses whether prejudice can only be suffered by the accused, or also by others, such as the Prosecution or – through their legal representatives – victims, by analyzing to whom fair trial rights extend.
- Hent Kalmo, Principles and Pragmatism in State Succession: Bargaining in the Economic Affairs Commission of the Tartu Peace Conference
- Jaanika Erne, On the Borders of Law, History and Politics: Estonian Statesman Jüri Jaakson’s Views and Life in Context
- Rytis Satkauskas, One Hundred Years of Faith: The Baltic States’ Contribution to International Justice
- Gabriela Belova & Nikolay Marin, A Century of the Baltic States’ Independence: Some Similarities and Differences with Bulgaria
- Lauri Hannikainen, Finland’s Continuation War (1941–1944): War of Aggression or Defence? War of Alliance or Separate War? Analyzed from the International – Especially Legal – Perspective
- Andres Parmas, Application of Domestic Criminal Statutes in regard to International Crimes
- Ineta Ziemele, Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law
- Ozlem Ulgen, Human Dignity in an Age of Autonomous Weapons: Are We in Danger of Losing an ‘Elementary Consideration of Humanity’?
- Marion Blondel, Vulnerability as a Virtue: An Attempt to Transpose the Care Ethic in International Law
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
In a world of increasing polarization and threats to individual and collective security, many turn to international law for guidance and protection, while others consider this body of law and the institutions that apply it ill-equipped to address evolving needs. Has international law lived up to its full potential and is it equipped to safeguard the peaceful coexistence of its subjects, to protect human rights and the environment, and to contribute to the attainment of shared prosperity?
The year 2020 will give us much to reflect upon and to reaffirm. Even as states have withdrawn or sought to withdraw from agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Treaty on European Union, the international community will commemorate other enduring institutions and commitments in 2020. For example, the United Nations will mark its 75th anniversary amidst calls for significant reforms to global governance. The year 2020 also will see the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, and the 20th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. At the same time, the year 2020 will serve as a reminder that we have but ten years left to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which envisage "a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination."
At its 114th Annual Meeting in 2020, the American Society of International Law (ASIL) invites policymakers, practitioners, academics, and students of international law to reflect upon the successes and failures of international law. Has international law held states, military forces, multinational corporations, and other actors – both public and private – to account for their international obligations? What role do regulatory bodies, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations play in actualizing the objectives of international law? Can and should international law be expected to produce just outcomes in all circumstances? The Annual Meeting presents an opportunity for the Society to take stock of the past successes and failures of international law while reaffirming the promise it holds for the future.
Monday, January 6, 2020
- Alexander Schwarz, Sexualisierte Kriegsgewalt an Männern und Jungen und deren Verfolgung durch internationale Strafgerichtshöfe
- Helena Krüger, „Famine Crimes and Forced Starvation“ – Aushungern als Methode der Kriegführung – ein Plädoyer für die Verfolgung von Verbrechen nach § 11 I S. 1 Nr. 5 VStGB
- Marjorie Andrea González Ramírez, Immaterial Damage Suffered by Internally Displaced Persons in Colombia
- Benedikt Behlert, The Obligation to Conduct Individual Refugee Status Determination Procedures under the ICCPR – Constructing a Convincing Legal Basis
- Ozlem Ulgen, Technological Innovations and the Changing Character of Warfare: the Significance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions Seventy Years On
- Knut Ipsen, Das IFHV in den vergangenen drei Dekaden von Friedenssicherungsrecht und humanitärem Völkerrecht
- Globale Herausforderungen und das Völkerrecht
- Theresa Bosl, Das Friedenssicherungsrecht der UN – Defizite und Reformoptionen
- Timeela Manandhar, Menschenrechtsverantwortung von Unternehmen – zu den Grenzen von Soft Law und der Notwendigkeit eines Vertrages
- Marcel Pfefferkuch, Die Welthandelsorganisation – Defizite und Reformoptionen
- Christina Soldanski, Völkerrechtliche Antworten auf den Klimawandel – Die Schwächen des Übereinkommens von Paris und die daraus resultierenden Umsetzungsprobleme
The Belt and Road Initiative, formerly known as the "New Silk Road" is a central part of the People's Republic of China (PRC)'s 13th 5-year plan, an ambitious program of infrastructure project finance in 65 countries, to the tune of 1 Trillion USD invested over 20 years. Geo-politically, this might be the most important global governance initiative since the end of the first cold war. But what does it mean for law? Surely it is an exemplar of entangled legalities. It means very different things to the investment protection lawyer at MOFCOM in Beijing, the public procurement regulator in Greece, the (insert big-law firm name) Associate or Partner in Kazakhstan, or insurgents in Balochistan (Pakistan), and Judges in constitutional courts and indeed the European Court of Human Rights. This paper argues that structures of practice as well as cognitive limitations and sociological factors keep law's engagement with complexity enmeshed but separate, along the lines of (most obviously) national law, but more so along the lines of policy-issues and the object-oriented nature of distinct legal fields. This short paper will narrate – hypothetically, though firmly based in reality – different views of actors engaging with the Belt and Road Initiative, to demonstrate the parallel phenomena of separateness and entangledness, and also demonstrate the inevitable interdependence of entangled legal strands, looking at the case of the Belgrade-Budapest rail modernization project. In addition, it will emphasize the close connection between legal entanglement and empire.
- Timothy Edmunds & Ana E Juncos, Constructing the capable state: Contested discourses and practices in EU capacity building
- Gisela Hirschmann, Cooperating with evil? Accountability in peace operations and the evolution of the United Nations Human Rights Due Diligence Policy
- Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik & Gemma Bird, The everyday at the border: Examining visual, material and spatial intersections of international politics along the ‘Balkan Route’
- Yf Reykers & Daan Fonck, No wings attached? Civil–military relations and agent intrusion in the procurement of fighter jets
- Sarai B Aharoni & Élise Féron, National populism and gendered vigilantism: The case of the Soldiers of Odin in Finland
- Baris Kesgin, Features of foreign policy birds: Israeli prime ministers as hawks and doves
- Katja Lindskov Jacobsen, Biometric voter registration: A new modality of democracy assistance?
Sunday, January 5, 2020
- Michael W. Manulak, A bird in the hand: Temporal focal points and change in international institutions
- Thomas Stubbs, Bernhard Reinsberg, Alexander Kentikelenis, & Lawrence King, How to evaluate the effects of IMF conditionality
- Jean-Frédéric Morin, Concentration despite competition: The organizational ecology of technical assistance providers
- Michael A. Gavin, Independent central banks and banking crisis liquidity
- Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, Opening hours of polling stations and voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment
- Brian Greenhill, How can international organizations shape public opinion? analysis of a pair of survey-based experiments
- Daniel Finke, EU enlargement and foreign policy coordination: more powerful, but less cohesive?
- Ishac Diwan, Philip Keefer, & Marc Schiffbauer, Pyramid capitalism: Cronyism, regulation, and firm productivity in Egypt
- Matteo Fiorini & Bernard Hoekman, EU services trade liberalization and economic regulation: Complements or substitutes?
- Asif Efrat & Abraham L. Newman, Intolerant justice: ethnocentrism and transnational-litigation frameworks