Saturday, September 12, 2020
Friday, September 11, 2020
- Special Section: Sexual Violence in the Wrong(ed) Bodies: Moving Beyond the Gender Binary in International Relations
- Paula Drumond, Elizabeth Mesok, & Marysia Zalewski, Sexual violence in the wrong(ed) bodies: moving beyond the gender binary in International Relations
- Chris Dolan, Maria Eriksson Baaz, & Maria Stern, What is sexual about conflict-related sexual violence? Stories from men and women survivors
- Philipp Schulz & Heleen Touquet, Queering explanatory frameworks for wartime sexual violence against men
- Billy Holzberg & Priya Raghavan, Securing the nation through the politics of sexual violence: tracing resonances between Delhi and Cologne
- Paul Kirby, Sexual violence in the border zone: the EU, the Women, Peace and Security agenda and carceral humanitarianism in Libya
- Sara E Davies & Clare Wenham, Why the COVID-19 response needs International Relations
- Simon Reich & Peter Dombrowski, The consequence of COVID-19: how the United States moved from security provider to security consumer
- Carla Norrlöf, Is COVID-19 the end of US hegemony? Public bads, leadership failures and monetary hegemony
- Michael Chertoff, Patrick Bury, & Daniela Richterova, Bytes not waves: information communication technologies, global jihadism and counterterrorism
- Kai Liao, The future war studies community and the Chinese revolution in military affairs
- Marwa Daoudy, Water weaponization in the Syrian conflict: strategies of domination and cooperation
- Ann-Kathrin Rothermel, Global–local dynamics in anti-feminist discourses: an analysis of Indian, Russian and US online communities
- Kjølv Egeland, Who stole disarmament? History and nostalgia in nuclear abolition discourse
- The Trade Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
- Tom Moerenhout, Trade Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
- Elizabeth L. Roos & Philip D. Adams, The Economy-Wide Impact of Subsidy Reform: A CGE Analysis
- Manal Shehabi, Is Energy Subsidy Reform in an Oil-Exporting Small Economy Beneficial to Trade? Illustrations from Kuwait
- Joerg Beutel, Analysing Fuel Subsidy and Taxation Reform with Input–Output Data
- Habtamu Fuje, Transportation Cost, Fuel Subsidies, and Commodity Prices
- Ronald P. Steenblik & Mark Mateo, Western Europe's Long Retreat from Coal and Implications for Energy Trade
Thursday, September 10, 2020
Alter: Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance: Before, during and after the WTO
This chapter, for a book focused on the future of the World Trade Organization, discusses three ways that global economic law and corresponding transnational dispute settlement systems have been constructed across time: via private contracting, inter-state contracting, or through principled multilateralism. Offering a global capitalism and law perspective, the chapter compares the ideal type of each model to the historical practice, identifying what multilateralism provides that contracting does not. The larger argument is that all three modes of law-making should and will co-exist. We should therefore be thinking about which mode of law-making is best for a particular issue or context, and how we might use the other modes to address problems that arise in each approach. The chapter then considers how contracting can supplant the WTO, and the tradeoffs associated with such an outcome.
Wednesday, September 9, 2020
- Emmanuel Gaillard, 2018 Lalive Lecture: The Myth of Harmony in International Arbitration
- Case Comment
- Gabriel M Lentner, Bridgestone v Panama: When Are Trademarks Covered Investments?
- Jeffrey Cohen, Edi Grgeta, & Federico Temerlin, In All Probability: An Economic Reading of Damages Under Factory at Chorzów
- Constantinos Salonidis & Sudhanshu Roy, Union of India v Vodafone Group plc: One Step Closer to Reconciling the Jurisdictional Competence of Domestic Courts and Investment Treaty Tribunals?
- Mark McLaughlin, Defining a State-Owned Enterprise in International Investment Agreements
- Gary Born & Stephanie Forrest, Amicus Curiae Participation in Investment Arbitration
- Kathryn Khamsi, Investments in Unsettled Maritime Boundary Contexts: The Role of Bilateral Investment Treaties in Delivering Certainty
- Asaf Niemoj, The Limitations on Article 43 ICSID Convention: An (Un)limited Instrument of the Tribunal?
- Ridhi Kabra, Return of the Inconsistent Application of the ‘Essential Security Interest’ Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: CC/Devas v India and Deutsche Telekom v India
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
- Eduardo Savarese, ‘What Is Done, Is Done’: come non espugnare la filiazione internazionalprivatistica, ma armonizzarla con i diritti umani
- Gabriele Della Morte, Quanto Immuni? Luci, ombre e penombre dell’app selezionata dal Governo italiano
- Francesca Maoli, Giovanni Sciaccaluga, Sara Lembrechts, Tine Van Hof, Laura Carpaneto, Thalia Kruger, & Wouter Vandenhole, Understanding the Best Interests of the Child in EU Child Abduction Proceedings: Perspectives from the Case Law
- CRC and Its Friends: 30 Years of Outsourcing Interpretation of Children’s Rights
- Giacomo Biagioni, The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the EU Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters
- Brigida Varesano, The Controversial Condition of Child-Soldiers: The Quest For Consistency Through the Lens of the Child’s Best Interests in the Light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- La riforma della prescrizione: diritto costituzionale, diritto penale e Convenzione europea dei diritti umani
- Margherita Cassano, Introduzione
- Marcello Cecchetti, Simone Pajno, Il problema della prescrizione penale alla prova del costituzionalismo ‘per principi’
- Gian Luigi Gatta, Prescrizione del reato, ragionevole durata del processo e tutela dei beni giuridici
- Maria Luisa Padelletti, La riforma della prescrizione tra diritti dell’imputato e della persona offesa: riflessioni dal punto di vista della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo
- Marcello Di Filippo, Walking the (Barbed) Wire of the Prohibition of Collective Expulsion: An Assessment of the Strasbourg Case Law
- Maria Ferrara, L’ordinanza cautelare della Corte internazionale di giustizia nel caso Gambia c. Myanmar: la prova dell’intento genocidario tra giurisdizione prima facie e test di plausibilità della pretesa
- Pasquale Pirrone, I primi pareri pregiudiziali della Corte europea dei diritti umani: aspetti procedurali
- Gianpaolo Maria Ruotolo, A Little Hate, Worldwide! Di libertà d’opinione e discorsi politici d’odio on-line nel diritto internazionale ed europeo
- Giovanni Zarra, Sulla compatibilità di misure restrittive, adottate in Italia e nella Regione Campania per contenere l’epidemia di COVID-19, con gli articoli 5 e 2 del Protocollo n. 4 CEDU
Monday, September 7, 2020
The interplay between peace and justice plays an important role in any contemporary conflict. Peace can be described in a variety ways, as being 'negative' or 'positive', 'liberal' or 'democratic'. But what is it that makes a peace just? This book draws together leading scholars to study this concept of a 'just peace', analysing different elements of the transition from conflict to peace.
The volume covers six core themes: conceptual approaches towards just peace, macro-principles, the nexus to security and stability, protection of persons and public goods, rule of law, and economic reform and accountability. Contributions engage with understudied issues, such as the pros and cons of robust UN mandates, the link between environmental protection and indigenous peoples, the treatment of illegal settlements, the feasibility of vetting practices, and the protection of labour rights in post-conflict economies. Overall, the book puts forward a case that just peace requires not only negotiation, agreement, and compromise, but contextual understandings of law, multiple dimensions of justice, and strategies of prevention.
- Volume 407
- Jan Wouters, Le statut juridique des standards publics et privés dans les relations économiques internationales
- Sandrine Maljean-Dubois, Le droit international de la biodiversité
Fikfak: War, International Law and the Rise of Parliament - The Influence of International Law on UK Parliamentary Practice with Respect to the Use of Force
In foreign relations law, the power to wage war is inherently an executive power. It is the government that declares war or sends the military forces into battle. Yet, increasingly, the prerogative to engage in military action has been open to scrutiny by domestic parliaments. These are more and more frequently asked to provide support for the Government in its decisions and to the military personnel on the ground. The votes in national parliaments provide legitimacy to the decision made and give the impression of the Government having been held to account by the people’s representatives. In some cases, ie when national parliaments had effectively vetoed the Government’s plans for military actions, there is even talk of a quasi-sharing of powers between the Executive and the Legislature. The paper tracks the decline of ‘government’ and the rise of the ‘house’ in the language used in the debates in the UK Parliament. It reveals how the terminology used in the debates has shifted from the power of the Government to the responsibility of the House. It maps out how this shift is mirrored in the increased relevance of international law and specifically the legality of the military intervention. It is this question – and particularly the experience of Iraq – that has reshaped the position of the UK Parliament vis-à-vis the Government. The investigation also reveals that as more and more MPs become involved and informed on issues of war, the deference shown to international institutions and their evaluation of the situation declines. MPs become more confident and more competent to make these decisions themselves.
This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a countermeasure. The article offers a survey of state practice that, according to some scholars, would support this argument, demonstrating that the corresponding practice is scarce, and that relevant domestic legislation denying jurisdictional immunity is not adopted as a countermeasure. Typically, countermeasures are adopted by political organs, which are responsible for the state’s international relations and which can assess what is a lawful response to a violation of international law. Domestic courts are not entitled to adopt countermeasures without the involvement of the executive organs that are competent for the international relations of the state. This article demonstrates that a domestic court’s denial of sovereign immunity as a countermeasure is unlawful without a prior determination of the government, and it is highly impractical when that determination is provided.