Friday, March 12, 2021
This book delves into legal and ethical concerns over the increased weaponization of outer space and the potential for space-based conflict in the very near future. Unique to this collection is the emphasis on questions of ethical conduct and legal standards applicable to military uses of outer space. No other existing publication takes this perspective, nor includes such a range of interdisciplinary expertise.
The essays included in this volume explore the moral and legal issues of space security in four sections. Part I provides a general legal framework for the law of war and peace in space. Part II tackles ethical issues. Part III looks at specific threats to space security. Part IV proposes possible legal and diplomatic solutions. With an expert author team from North American and Europe, the volume brings together academics, military lawyers, military space operators, aerospace industry representatives, diplomats, and national security and policy experts. The experience of this team provides a collection unmatched in any academic publication broaching even some of these issues and will be required reading for anyone interested in war and peace in outer space.
Thursday, March 11, 2021
- Margherita Belgioioso, Jessica Di Salvatore, & Jonathan Pinckney, Tangled up in Blue: The Effect of UN Peacekeeping on Nonviolent Protests in Post–Civil War Countries
- Kseniya Oksamytna, Vincenzo Bove, & Magnus Lundgren, Leadership Selection in United Nations Peacekeeping
- Kaisa Hinkkainen Elliott, Sara M T Polo, & Liana Eustacia Reyes, Making Peace or Preventing It? UN Peacekeeping, Terrorism, and Civil War Negotiations
- Rachel Schmidt, Contesting the Fighter Identity: Framing, Desertion, and Gender in Colombia
- Robert U Nagel, Conflict-Related Sexual Violence and the Re-Escalation of Lethal Violence
- Austin C Doctor, Foreign Fighters and Conflict-Related Sexual Violence
- Alke Jenss, Benjamin Schuetze, Rethinking Authoritarian Power: The Logistics Space and Authoritarian Practices in and between Secondary Port Cities of the Global South
- Tyler Pratt, Angling for Influence: Institutional Proliferation in Development Banking
- Sung Eun Kim & Krzysztof J Pelc, Trade Competition and Worker Compensation: Why Do Some Receive More than Others?
- Joshua Freedman, The Recognition Dilemma: Negotiating Identity in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
- Julianne Phillips & Scott Wolford, Collective Deterrence in the Shadow of Shifting Power
- Andrew Boutton & Thomas M Dolan, Enemies in the Shadows: On the Origins and Survival of Clandestine Clients
- Tanisha M Fazal, Life and Limb: New Estimates of Casualty Aversion in the United States
- Cathy Xuanxuan Wu, Amanda A Licht, & Scott Wolford, Same as the Old Boss? Domestic Politics and the Turnover Trap
- Cassilde Schwartz, Miranda Simon, David Hudson, & Shane D Johnson, Law Breaking and Law Bending: How International Migrants Negotiate with State Borders
- Michal Parizek & Matthew D Stephen, The Increasing Representativeness of International Organizations’ Secretariats: Evidence from the United Nations System, 1997–2015
- Jillienne Haglund & Ryan M Welch, From Litigation to Rights: The Case of the European Court of Human Rights
- Hanne Fjelde, Carl Henrik Knutsen, & Håvard Mokleiv Nygård, Which Institutions Matter? Re-Considering the Democratic Civil Peace
- Lior Lehrs, Give Peace a Plan: Peace Plans as Diplomatic Tools and Textual Agents in Conflict Areas
- Brandon Bolte, The Puzzle of Militia Containment in Civil War
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
- Fawzia Gibson-Fall, Military responses to COVID-19, emerging trends in global civil-military engagements
- Christian Bueger & Timothy Edmunds, Pragmatic ordering: Informality, experimentation, and the maritime security agenda
- Julien Pomarède, Imagining (in)security: NATO's collective self-defence and post-9/11 military policing in the Mediterranean Sea
- Sergio Catignani & Victoria M. Basham, The gendered politics of researching military policy in the age of the ‘knowledge economy’
- Katrin Travouillon & Julie Bernath, Time to break up with the international community? Rhetoric and realities of a political myth in Cambodia
- Lucas Knotter, Why declare independence? Observing, believing, and performing the ritual
- David James Cantor, Environment, Mobility, and International Law: A New Approach in the Americas
- Rachel Chambers & Anil Yilmaz Vastardis, Human Rights Disclosure and Due Diligence Laws: The Role of Regulatory Oversight in Ensuring Corporate Accountability
- Samuel J. Hickey, Remediation in Foreign Bribery Settlements: The Foundations of a New Approach
- Josh Martin, A Transnational Law of the Sea
- Obiora Chinedu Okafor, The Future of International Solidarity in Global Refugee Protection
- Alexander Brown & Sune Lægaard, Cosmopolitan Democratic and Communicative Rights: The Danish Cartoons Controversy and the Right to Be Heard, Even Across Borders
- Nadia Bernaz, Conceptualizing Corporate Accountability in International Law: Models for a Business and Human Rights Treaty
- Benjamin Gregg, Beyond Due Diligence: The Human Rights Corporation
- Gehan Gunatilleke, Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression
- Almut Schilling-Vacaflor, Putting the French Duty of Vigilance Law in Context: Towards Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations in the Global South?
- Gregor Maučec, The International Criminal Court and the Issue of Intersectionality—A Conceptual and Legal Framework for Analysis
- Keilin Anderson & Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore, Ne bis in idem, nulla poena sine lege and Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Aftermath of a Trial at the International Criminal Court
- Priyamvada Yarnell, Relativising Atrocity Crimes: The Message of Unconditional Early Release of Perpetrators Convicted by the ICTY (1998 – 2018)
- Caleb H. Wheeler, Shifting Priorities: Are Attitudes Changing at the International Criminal Court about Trials in absentia?
- Samaria Muhammad, Barbora Holá, & Anja Dirkzwager, Reimagining the icc: Exploring Practitioners’ Perspectives on the Effectiveness of the International Criminal Court
- Marco Colacurci, The Draft Convention Ecocide and the Role for Corporate Remediation. Some Insights from the International Monsanto Tribunal and a Recent Research Proposal
- Kai Ambos, Corporate Complicity in International Crimes through Arms Supplies despite National Authorisations?
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Call for Submissions, Student Prize Submissions, and Book Reviews: Irish Yearbook of International Law
Call for Submissions
The Editors of the Irish Yearbook of International Law invite submissions on any area of public or private international law for publication as an article in the Yearbook. Submissions are normally 10,000 to 12,000 words in length, although longer pieces will be considered. Submissions, comprising a brief 100-word abstract, article referenced in OSCOLA style, and confirmation of exclusive submission, should be sent to James Gallen (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 31 July 2021.
IYBIL Student Prize
The IYBIL Student Prize will be awarded to the best submission written by an individual enrolled in a degree programme at the time of submission. The winner will receive a prize of €250, generously sponsored by the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs, and their article will be published in the next edition of the Yearbook. Please submit your paper as per the call for papers above, indicating if you would like to be considered for the IYBIL Student Prize.
Please get in touch with us if there is a book you would like to review for the IYBIL. We are happy to consider books written by authors from anywhere in the world and on any topic loosely within the theme of International Law. This is a great opportunity to learn about the publishing process, and if we agree to publish your review we will arrange to send a free copy of the book to you. If you are interested, please get in touch with Bríd Ní Ghráinne (email@example.com) with the name of the book you would like to review. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis.
Monday, March 8, 2021
Call for Submissions and Young Practitioners and Scholars Essay Competition: European Investment Law and Arbitration Review
- Warren H. Maruyama, Can the Appellate Body Be Saved?
- Paola Conconi, Cristina Herghelegiu, & Laura Puccio, EU Trade Agreements: To Mix or Not to Mix, That Is the Question
- Evan Gabor & Karl P. Sauvat, Facilitating Sustainable FDI for Sustainable Development in a WTO Investment Facilitation Framework: Four Concrete Proposals
- Julien Chaisse & Jamieson Kirkwood, One Stone, Two Birds: Can China Leverage WTO Accession to Build the BRI?
- Heng Wang, Selective Engagement? Future Path for US– China Economic Relations and Its Implications
Sunday, March 7, 2021
- Falin Zhang, Rising Illusion and Illusion of Rising: Mapping Global Financial Governance and Relocating China
- Jens Steffek, Marcus Müller, & Hartmut Behr, Terminological Entrepreneurs and Discursive Shifts in International Relations: How a Discipline Invented the “International Regime”
- Eleanor Gordon, The Researcher and the Researched: Navigating the Challenges of Research in Conflict-Affected Environments
- Richard Maher, International Relations Theory and the Future of European Integration
- Christoph Trinn & Thomas Wencker, Integrating the Quantitative Research on the Onset and Incidence of Violent Intrastate Conflicts
- Quintijn B Kat, Subordinate-State Agency and US Hegemony: Colombian Consent versus Bolivian Dissent
- Rhys Crilley, Where We At? New Directions for Research on Popular Culture and World Politics
- Anthony Pahnke, Regrounding Critical Theory: Lenin on Imperialism, Nationalism, and Strategy
Kretzmer & Ronen: The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories (2d ed.)
Judicial review by Israel's Supreme Court over actions of Israeli authorities in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is an important element in Israel's legal and political control of these territories. The Occupation of Justice presents a comprehensive discussion of the Court's decisions in exercising this review. This revised and expanded edition includes updated material and analysis, as well as new chapters. Inter alia, it addresses the Court's approach to its jurisdiction to consider petitions from residents of the Occupied Territories; justiciability of sensitive political issues; application and interpretation of the international law of belligerent occupation in general, and the Fourth Geneva Convention in particular; the relevance of international human rights law and Israeli constitutional law; the rights of Gaza residents after the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlements from the area; Israeli settlements and settlers; construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank; security measures, including internment, interrogation practices, and punitive house demolitions; and judicial review of hostilities.
The study examines the inherent tension involved in judicial review over the actions of authorities in a territory in which the inhabitants are not part of the political community the Court belongs to. It argues that this tension is aggravated in the context of the West Bank by the glaring disparity between the norms of belligerent occupation and the Israeli government's policies. The study shows that while the Court's review has enabled many individuals to receive a remedy, it has largely served to legitimise government policies and practices in the Occupied Territories.
ASIL Global Engagement Series: Reconceiving America's Global Role in the Biden Era: International Perspectives
This edited collection investigates where the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument stands on migration and the rights of migrants.
This book offers a comprehensive analysis of cases brought by migrants in different stages of migration, covering the right to flee, who is entitled to enter and remain in Europe, and what treatment is owed to them when they come within the jurisdiction of a Council of Europe member state. As such, the book evaluates the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning different categories of migrants including asylum seekers, irregular migrants, those who have migrated through domestic lawful routes, and those who are currently second or third generation migrants in Europe.
The broad perspective adopted by the book allows for a systematic analysis of how and to what extent the Convention protects non-refoulement, migrant children, family rights of migrants, status rights of migrants, economic and social rights of migrants, as well as cultural and religious rights of migrants.
The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order, and is being shaped by it.
As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact.
With contributions from international law, history, and international relations, and from Western and non-Western perspectives, this book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present.
One of the harshest forms of criticisms directed at international institutions generally, and international courts specifically, is that they are political or politicized. Such a criticism appears to presume (a) that law and politics, in general, and international adjudication and international politics, in particular, can be divorced from one another; and (b) that the values and interests advanced through international adjudication would be better served by insulating international courts from the vicissitudes of world politics. The main claim I make in this Chapter is that, although it is vital to separate between law and politics, there are unavoidable points of contact between the two domains. Furthermore, I maintain that international courts should take cognizance of certain political considerations. While international courts do not serve as a direct extension of international politics, they do interact with their political environment, and depend in meaningful ways on the support of political actors. As a result, international courts cannot afford to ignore their political context; yet, they must also strive to maintain the distinction between law and politics.
As a point of departure, Part One of the Chapter discusses the goals of international courts, and Part Two introduces two key perspectives for evaluating their operations - legitimacy and effectiveness. Part Three describes several dominant points of contact between international adjudication and the political world – acceptance of jurisdiction, support of judicial operations and enforcement of judgments – and Part Four discusses some of normative and practical implications of juxtaposing judicial goals and the political context against which they should be realized. Specifically, I ask there whether and how courts can take cognizance of political considerations without undermining their legitimacy and effectiveness, and propose that legal notions and doctrines, such as accommodating legitimate or reasonable expectations, avoiding imposing on international actors impossible or unreasonable burdens when interpreting and applying legal norms, affording states a margin of appreciation and developing flexible remedies, may play a useful role in this regard. Part Five concludes.
In their introductory essay to this conference, Chilton, Ginsburg and Abebe argue in favor of a social science approach in part because as a scientific method, it sets aside normative commitments and privileges what they call positive inquiry. While they acknowledge that every scholar has certain normative priors, they argue the social science approach engages “in a positivist enterprise of trying to describe the world as it is, rather than how it should be.”
This essay takes up Chilton, Ginsburg and Abebe’s invitation to use a social science approach to establish or ascertain some facts about international law scholarship in the United States. Under that social science approach a research project involves identifying a specific question, developing hypothesis, using a research design to test that hypothesis based on some form of qualitative or quantitative data, and presenting conclusions while acknowledging the assumptions upon which they are based and the level of uncertainty associated with those results.
The specific research question that this essay seeks to answer is to what extent scholarship has addressed international law’s historical and continuing complicity in producing racial inequality and hierarchy including slavery, as well as the subjugation and domination of the peoples of the First Nations. I am also interested in the extent to which international law scholarship has provided space for scholars whose work resists the various types of racial domination that international law has been complicit in producing. I am particularly interested in establishing the extent to which international legal scholarship has been open to traditions that center race as an analytical category. Centering race as an analytical category is after all crucial move for reclaiming subjugated knowledges – such as those that uncover how and to what extent race shaped international law at various moments- that are not part of the mainstream international law canon. To answer this question, this essays uses the content published in American Journal of International Law (AJIL) since it was first published in 1907 to 2020. It also uses the content published in its sister publication, AJIL Unbound since it was first published in 2014 to 2020. The essay acknowledges the assumptions upon which this research question was selected and discloses its hypothesis. The essay then describes the research design used in analyzing the database of 7,475 articles in the print edition of AJIL and 541 articles in AJIL Unbound to answer this question. The results of the inquiry are then presented while acknowledging the limitations of its research design. The results indicate that the American Journal of International Law and its counterpart AJIL Unbound have seldom published essays examining race and international law.
The final section of the essay advances some potential explanations to account for the paucity of scholarship on race and international law over the 113-year history of the print edition of the journal and the 6-year history of its online companion.
I hypothesize that the exclusion of issues of race in one of the pages of the leading international law journal can be accounted for along four dimensions. First, that this absence is a reflection of the conscious exclusion of African Americans in the American Society of International Law in the first six decades of its existence as the 2020 Richardson Report found. Second, it is the result of the tough scrutiny race scholarship in international law has faced in the AJIL and AJIL Unbound. Third, that the big or defining debates about international law in the United States have focused on issues other than race, and fourth that color-blindness has been the default view of American international law scholarship as represented in the journal.
Ultimately, the point of this essay is threefold. First, to show that the social science approach that Chilton, Ginsburg and Abebe advance can be useful to answer questions that critical scholars like myself are interested in. Second, that when this social science approach is applied to answer questions like the one pursued in this essay the distinction between the neutrality of the scientific methodology of this social scientific approach on the one hand, and the normativity of critical approaches that Chilton, Ginsburg and Abebe argue characterizes other approaches, on the other, falls apart. Third, this essay shows that there is still ample scope for more international law scholarship on race.
- Special Issue: Towards a History of the Decolonization of International Law
- Natasha Wheatley & Samuel Moyn, Towards a History of the Decolonization of International Law. An Introduction to the Special Issue
- Samuel Moyn, The High Tide of Anticolonial Legalism
- Teresa Davis, The Ricardian State: Carlos Calvo and Latin America’s Ambivalent Origin Story for the Age of Decolonization
- Priyasha Saksena, Building the Nation: Sovereignty and International Law in the Decolonisation of South Asia
- Idriss Paul-Armand Fofana, Afro-Asian Jurists and the Quest to Modernise the International Protection of Foreign-Owned Property, 1955–1975
- Christopher Dietrich, Erasing the Marks of Domination: Economic Sovereignty, Decolonization, and International Lawmaking in the 1950s and 1960s
- Umut Özsu, Hydrocarbon Humanitarianism: Ibrahim Shihata, ‘Oil Aid’, and Resource Sovereignty
- Surabhi Ranganathan, Decolonization and International Law: Putting the Ocean on the Map
- Sam Klug, ‘What, Then, of the Land’?: Territoriality, International Law, and the Republic of New Afrika
- Miranda Johnson, Indigenizing Self-Determination at the United Nations: Reparative Progress in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples