- Achilles Skordas, The Abraham Accords and the Economic Dimension of Peace in the Middle East
- ichael Bothe & Rainer Hofmann, Professor Dr. Dr. h. c. Rudolf Bernhardt (1925–2021)
- Jerzy Kranz, Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Rudolf Bernhardt (1925–2021)
- Frank Schorkopf, Menschenrechte und Mehrheiten
- Jannika Jahn, Internationaler Klimaschutz mithilfe nationaler Verfas-sungsgerichte? Erkenntnisse aus dem Klimabeschluss des BVerfG
- Ingo Venzke & Philipp Günther, Völkerrechtlicher Investitionsschutz made in Germany? Zur Genese und Gestalt des ersten BIT zwischen Deutschland und Pakistan (1959)
- Benedikt Pirker & Jennifer Smolka, Five Shades of Grey – A Linguistic and Pragmatic Approach to Treaty Interpretation
- Jelena Bäumler & Julieta Sarno, The Immunisation against COVID-19 as a Global Public Good
- Giuliana Lampo, Jurisdiction Beyond Territorial Sovereignty: Defining the Scope of Exclusive Flag-State Jurisdiction Under Art. 92 UNCLOS
- Beáta Bakó, Governing Without Being in Power? Controversial Promises for a New Transition to the Rule of Law in Hungary
Saturday, May 14, 2022
Kolb, Gaggioli, & Kilibarda: Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Further Reflections and Perspectives
Providing up-to-date discussions of both evolving and novel debates in human rights law and humanitarian law, this timely new edition of the Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law complements, rather than replaces, its predecessor with fresh perspectives from leading scholars on the controversial and crucial topics within these fields.
Examining the application of international law to armed conflict situations, contributors present contemporary reflections on a variety of issues that have evolved and emerged in recent years. Chapters integrate a multitude of converging and diverging perspectives on international law in armed conflict, giving voice to stakeholders from academic, humanitarian, judicial, and military backgrounds. Grounded in the results from extensive cutting-edge research on various topics pertaining to the interplay between human rights law and humanitarian law, this Research Handbook illuminates the role of international law in topics such as counterterrorism, tribunals, detention and detainee transfer, sexual and gender-based violence, and torture.
New ASIL Prize for Best Article in International Dispute Resolution
During the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) held on April 7, 2022 in Washington, D.C., the co-chairs of the ASIL Dispute Resolution Interest Group (DRIG) Simon Batifort and Rémy Gerbay announced the creation of the ASIL DRIG “Prize for Best Article in International Dispute Resolution.” The inaugural 2023 Prize will be awarded to the author(s) of the article published in 2021 that the Selection Committee considers to be outstanding in the field of international dispute resolution. DRIG is currently accepting submissions for the Prize.
Please see below details on the Prize and the members of the 2023 Selection Committee:
- Eligibility: The Selection Committee will consider publications on inter-State dispute settlement, investor-State dispute settlement, international commercial arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution. Any article, or book chapter from an edited volume, in the English language published during 2021 may be nominated. Sole and jointly authored papers are eligible, and self-nominations are accepted. Membership in the American Society of International Law is not required. Submissions from outside the United States are welcome and encouraged.
- Criteria: In assessing submissions, the Selection Committee will take into account factors such as: a) depth of research; b) sophistication of analysis; c) originality; d) quality of writing; and e) potential impact on the field of international dispute resolution.
- Submission: The Dispute Resolution Interest Group is currently accepting submissions, which must be received by October 31, 2022. Electronic submission is required in portable document format (.pdf). All submissions must include contact information (name, e-mail, phone, address). Electronic submissions should be sent to the following email address: email@example.com. Please indicate “Submission for the DRIG Prize” in the subject line.
- Prize: The Selection Committee will select one publication for the award of the Prize. The Prize consists of a certificate of recognition, a complimentary registration for the 2023 ASIL Annual Meeting, a complimentary one-year membership in the Society, and a complimentary one-year subscription to the Jus Mundi international law and arbitration search engine. The winner of the Prize will be announced at the ASIL Annual Meeting in April 2023. The Prize is sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, and Jus Mundi.
- Selection Committee: The Selection Committee consists of individuals drawn from private practice, academia, and/or government who possess expertise in the fields covered by the Prize, and also includes the DRIG co-chairs. The Selection Committee for the inaugural 2023 Prize will be presided by Michele Potestà (Lévy Kaufmann Kohler) and will include Crina Baltag (Stockholm University), Kun Fan (UNSW Sidney), James Thuo Gathii (Loyola University Chicago), Norah Gallagher (Queen Mary University of London), Ndanga Kamau (Independent Arbitrator), Facundo Pérez Aznar (Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement), Dirk Pulkowski (Permanent Court of Arbitration), and Jeremy Sharpe (Independent Arbitrator).
Friday, May 13, 2022
- James A Green, The Rise of Twiplomacy and the Making of Customary International Law on Social Media
- Lauri Mälksoo, The Legacy of F.F. Martens and the Shadow of Colonialism
- Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa, The Principle of Non-Recognition of States Arising from Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms of International Law
- Lam Hing-chau & Qin Jing, The Protective Jurisdiction Under the Hong Kong National Security Law: Legitimacy and Impact
- Tae Jung Park, “Cheap Talk” in International Trade Law
- Sayeman Bula-Bula, The Judgment of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court of 5 March 2020 in the Case of Afghanistan
- Kaijun Pan, Difference Between the ICJ and the CERD Committee: A Comment on the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) Case
This article assesses the current legal status of the doctrine of self-defence on the high seas in light of its theoretical and historical development. It examines the parameters of the self-defence doctrine when the intervention against a foreign vessel does not violate the Charter of the United Nations (the UN Charter) Article 2(4), and the situation does not trigger Article 51 because there is no armed attack. It traces the development of the doctrines from the mid-19th century to the UN Charter and the First Conference on the United Nations on the Law of the Sea of 1958. It points out that the normative significance of the flag state principle and the grounds of the shipping interception on the high seas were inconsistent. It explores the various basis of maritime interdiction and the scholarly arguments that denied such measures in light of the freedom of the high seas. Then, it examines the codification process of the Convention on the High Seas and Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. The research shows that the Caroline Test is consistent with the principle of the freedom of the high seas. The development after the UN Charter did not alter this standard both in the context of the measures against vessels supporting domestic insurgents and the anti-terrorism maritime interdiction.
- Special Issue: Bias in International Law
- Veronika Fikfak, Daniel Peat, & Eva van der Zee, Bias in International Law
- Moshe Hirsch, Regulators’ Mindsets, Ingroup Favoritism, and the National Treatment Obligation in World Trade Organization Law
- Benedikt Pirker & Izabela Skoczeń, Pragmatic Inferences and Moral Factors in Treaty Interpretation—Applying Experimental Linguistics to International Law
- Jonathan Kolieb, Consuming International Law: Towards an Experimental Research Agenda for Understanding the Effects of Corporate International Humanitarian Law Violations on Consumer Buying Behavior
- Runar Hilleren Lie, The Influencers of International Investment Law: A Computational Study of ISDS Actors’ Changing Behavior
- Evangelia Nissioti, It Takes Three to Tango: A Behavioral Analysis of the Benefits of Having a Mediator in International Disputes
- Eva van der Zee, How Insights on Bounded Rationality Could Inform the International Law of Environmental Assessments
- Ezgi Yildiz & Umut Yüksel, Understanding the Limitations of Behavioralism: Lessons from the Field of Maritime Delimitation
- Special Issue: Lessons Learnt from International Environmental Agreements: Celebrating 20 years of International Environmental Agreements (INEA)
- Joyeeta Gupta, Courtney Vegelin, & Nicky Pouw, Lessons learnt from international environmental agreements for the Stockholm + 50 Conference: celebrating 20 Years of INEA
- Agni Kalfagianni & Oran R. Young, The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA
- Peter H. Sand & Jeffrey McGee, Lessons learnt from two decades of international environmental agreements: law
- Nicky R. M. Pouw, Hans-Peter Weikard, & Richard B. Howarth, Economic analysis of international environmental agreements: lessons learnt 2000–2020
- Philipp Pattberg, Cille Kaiser, Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward
- Naho Mirumachi & Margot Hurlbert, Reflecting on twenty years of international agreements concerning water governance: insights and key learning
- Matilda Petersson & Peter Stoett, Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance
- Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Katharina Rietig, & Michelle Scobie, Agency dynamics of International Environmental Agreements: actors, contexts, and drivers
- Joshua Philipp Elsässer, Thomas Hickmann, Sikina Jinnah, Sebastian Oberthür, & Thijs Van de Graaf , Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research
- Joyeeta Gupta, Aarti Gupta, & Courtney Vegelin, Equity, justice and the SDGs: lessons learnt from two decades of INEA scholarship
Thursday, May 12, 2022
- Raphaël van Steenberghe, Who Are Protected by the Fundamental Guarantees under International Humanitarian Law? Part 1: Breaking with the Status Requirement in Light of the ICC Case Law
- Elena Katselli Proukaki, Preventing the Forcibly Displaced from Returning as Persecution and Inhumane Act under International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute
- Patryk Gacka, Remote Victimisation and the Proximate Cause. Transgenerational Harms before the International Criminal Court
- Klea Ramaj, The 2015 South Korean–Japanese Agreement on ‘Comfort Women’: A Critical Analysis
- Liana Georgieva Minkova, Control over the Theory: Reforming the icc’s Approach to Establishing Commission Liability?
- Cristina Fernández-Pacheco Estrada, What We Talk About When We Talk About Early Release in International Criminal Law: The Sui Generis Nature of the Reduction of Sentence Under the Rome Statute
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
- J Luis Rodriguez & Elizabeth Mendenhall, Nuclear weapon-free zones and the issue of maritime transit in Latin America
- Clare Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner, & Maike Voss, The futility of the pandemic treaty: caught between globalism and statism
- Yaniv Voller, Rethinking armed groups and order: Syria and the rise of militiatocracies
- Jason Stearns, Involution and symbiosis: the self-perpetuating conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo
- Jessica Anania, Transitional justice and the ongoing exclusion of sexual exploitation and abuse by international intervenors
- Dong Jin Kim & Andrew Ikhyun Kim, Global health diplomacy and North Korea in the COVID-19 era
- Isabel Bramsen, Transformative diplomacy? Micro-sociological observations from the Philippine peace talks
- Christian Downie, How do informal international organizations govern? The G20 and orchestration
- Michael Gentile & Martin Kragh, The 2020 Belarusian presidential election and conspiracy theories in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict
- Adam B Lerner, Pathological nationalism? The legacy of crowd psychology in international theory
- Yuka Kobayashi & Josephine King, Myanmar's strategy in the China–Myanmar Economic Corridor: a failure in hedging?
- Giulio Pugliese, Francesca Ghiretti, & Aurelio Insisa, Italy's embrace of the Belt and Road Initiative: populist foreign policy and political marketing
- Vincent K L Chang, China's new historical statecraft: reviving the Second World War for national rejuvenation
- Case Comments
- Agora: Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile Antonio R Parra, Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile: ‘ICSID’s Longest-Running Case’ An introduction to the Agora
- Niccoló Ridi, Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile: Layers of Preclusion
- Danielle Morris & Cem Kalelioğlu, Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile: Assignment of Investment Treaty Claims and Jus Standi of the Assignee
- Giuliana Lampo & Gustavo Minervini, Michael Anthony Lee-Chin v Dominican Republic: Interpreting the Consent to Arbitrate in the CARICOM–DR FTA
- Tareq Na’el Al-Tawil, Venugopal Prabhakar Gantasala & Walaaeldeen Ibraheem, The Potential Impact of the 2020 UAE FDI Decree and Side Agreements
- Arpan Banerjee & Simon Weber, The 2019 Morocco Model BIT: Moving Forwards, Backwards or Roundabout in Circles?
- Laura Rees-Evans & Rhys Carvosso, Legal Consequences of and Approaches to the Question of Recognition of a Government of a State: Disputes involving Venezuela
- Andrea Carlevaris, The Use of the UNIDROIT Principles and Other Transnational Principles of Commercial Law in Treaty Arbitration: Hazards and Opportunities
- Qingjiang Kong & Kaiyuan Chen, ISDS Reform in the Context of China’s IIAs
- Yang Peng & Wei Shen, An Analysis of Concurrent Proceedings under Chinese BITs
- Peter Hilpold, ‘Humanizing’ the Law of Self-Determination – the Chagos Island Case
- Tom Sparks, Reassessing State Consent to Jurisdiction: The Indispensable Third Party Principle before the ICJ
- Katariina Särkänne, Agreement for the Termination of the Intra-EU BITs: Breaking the Stalemate, But Not Quite There Yet?
- Ergun Cakal, Assessing (and Making Sense of) Severity: Conceptualising and Contextualising Torture’s Core
- Joanna Mazur & Magdalena Słok-Wódkowska, Access to Information and Data in International Law: How to Find a Path Forward from Human Rights-Oriented and Market-Oriented Approach?
Tuesday, May 10, 2022
- Articoli e Saggi
- Víctor Luis Gutiérrez Castillo, Relationship Between International Law and Domestic Law: A Critical Analysis of the Spanish Legal System in the Light of the Monist Theory
- Raffaele Coppola & Carmela Ventrella, Verso un nuovo assetto internazionale sul piano economico-finanziario: la posizione della Santa Sede
- Annamaria Viterbo, The 2021 IMF Allocation of Special Drawing Rights: Opportunities and Legal Constraints
- Pierfrancesco Rossi, Status internazionale della Santa Sede e categorie della statualità
- Osservatorio Diritti Umani
- Antonino Alì, La sorveglianza elettronica su vasta scala per finalità di intelligence nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo
- Anna Liguori, Cambiamento climatico e diritti umani dinanzi al Comitato dei diritti del fanciullo
- James A. Green, Christian Henderson & Tom Ruys, Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum
- Symposium: old wine in new bottles? – US President Biden’s first encounter with the jus ad bellum
- Mary Ellen O’Connell, Forever air wars and the lawful purpose of self-defence
- Christian Henderson, The 25 February 2021 military strikes and the ‘armed attack’ requirement of self-defence: from ‘sina qua non’ to the point of vanishing?
- Chris O’Meara, February 2021 American airstrikes in Syria: necessary and proportionate acts of self-defence or unlawful armed reprisals?
- Frédéric Mégret & Chiara Redaelli, The crime of aggression as a violation of the rights of one’s own population
- Marko Svicevic, Collective self-defence or regional enforcement action: the legality of a SADC intervention in Cabo Delgado and the question of Mozambican consent
Monday, May 9, 2022
Caballero & Londoño: Redefining Development: The Extraordinary Genesis of the Sustainable Development Goals
This extraordinary first-person story of what can be achieved through informal diplomacy traces the improbably successful struggle to achieve acceptance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—and thus transform the global development agenda—against all odds. Moving from the framing of the SDGs concept through the entire negotiation process (including a trove of key documents), Paula Caballero and Patti Londoño's vibrant narrative provides rare insight into informal diplomacy and multilateralism in action. Their insiders' account provides a unique perspective on how global movements and agendas can be built and impelled forward. Not least, it also serves to prove that just a few committed individuals can generate radical change.
Denial of justice arises under customary international law when states prevent foreigners from accessing domestic courts. Certain states, scholars and arbitrators have maintained that an extension of the rule against denial of justice applies when states prevent access to international courts or tribunals. If correct, this extension would impose a significant control on states’ engagement with international adjudication. However, this article contends that the international extension of denial of justice is unsupported on any account of custom. A state's interference with international adjudication might be treated as ineffective, or it might breach the instrument containing the state's consent to the international claim. But this article argues that it does not, and should not, also breach the customary rule on denial of justice. The article therefore aims to clarify both the customary law in this area and the actual and desirable extent of states’ autonomy in their engagement with international adjudication.
- Juan Nascimbene - Órgano de Solución de Diferencias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio
- León Castellanos Jankiewicz - México vs. Smith & Wesson
- Antonio Remiro Brotóns - Ucrania: Epítome del Desorden Internacional
- Jorge Francisco Aguirre Sala - La Democracia Electrónica
- Silvia Gagliardi - Feminismo, Derecho Internacional y las Mujeres Amazigh
- René Provost- La Administración de Justicia por Insurgentes Armados
- Patrícia Galvão Teles - Jus Cogens y los Valores Fundamentales
- Andrés del Castillo- La Crisis del Plástico y la necesidad de un Tratado Internacional
- Juan Pablo Scarfi – La Historia Invisible del Derecho Internacional en las Américas
- J. Gustavo Prieto Muñoz- Derecho Internacional de las Inversiones y los Derechos Humanos
- Christian Villanueva - Conflicto en Ucrania (perspectiva militar)
- Wilson A. Martínez Sánchez: El Trastorno Mental y la Inimputabilidad en el Derecho Penal
- Karina Ansolabehere – Desapariciones Forzadas en América Latina
Sunday, May 8, 2022
- Volume 424
- Masahiko Asada, International Law of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament
de Vilchez Moragues: Climate in Court: Defining State Obligations on Global Warming Through Domestic Climate Litigation
Answering the key question of whether there is an obligation for States to define and enact sound climate policies in order to avoid the impacts of global warming, this timely book provides expert analysis on recent global climate cases, assessing not only the plaintiffs’ claims but also the legal reasoning put forward by the courts.
As an increasing number of environmental organisations are requiring domestic courts to answer this fundamental question, this book illustrates that more and more court decisions are confirming that the discretion held by States with regards to the issue of climate change is not unlimited. The book explores how States must also demonstrate that sufficient action is being taken to protect their citizens from risks. With in-depth assessments of common legal grounds, such as the international climate change regime, environmental law principles and human rights, it further highlights potential issues for climate litigation including the separation of powers and the standing of the plaintiffs themselves.
This chapter traces some theoretical implications, for both law and moral philosophy, of the legal prohibition of aggressive war and armed force, with special emphasis on implications for the individualisation of war. It focuses on the application of human rights law during armed conflict, individual rights and duties under the law of armed conflict, and individual criminal responsibility.
The chapter argues that every killing in furtherance of an act of aggression, and every killing in violation of international humanitarian law, violates the human rights of those it kills. International humanitarian law does not give soldiers a right to fight irrespective of their cause, but instead confers a limited legal immunity from prosecution except for international crimes. Notably, general rules regarding official immunities do not apply during armed conflict to members of a state's armed forces, which may include a head of state. International law imposes different individual obligations on state leaders and ordinary soldiers in order to preserve the pragmatic compromise underlying combatant immunity.
As a result, the modern law of war tracks the revisionist just war theory associated with Jeff McMahan more closely than the conventionalist just war theory associated with Michael Walzer, though the transformation is not yet complete.
Genocide is generally understood as the “crime of crimes”, the most serious international offence that "shocks the conscience of mankind". Even though its narrow legal construction only allows for the categorizing very specific atrocities as genocide, the perceived gravity creates a special stigma that paradoxically might be seen to reduce the seriousness of other crimes in comparison. This has led to various attempts to bridge the schism between genocide and other international crimes in legal and social science scholarship and in domestic law. Some post-communist countries introduced equal legal sanctions for the denial of the Holocaust - the par excellence genocide - and communist crimes, which on many occasions do not even reach the level of international crimes. My chapter focuses on this phenomenon and aims to demonstrate that the desire to symbolically express the seriousness of communist crimes by putting them on an equal footing with the Holocaust threatens to simultaneously inflate the gravity of communist crimes and decrease the perceived seriousness of the Holocaust.
- Jenna Russo, The Protection of Civilians and the Primacy of Politics: Complementarities and Friction in South Sudan
- Lenneke Sprik, Jennifer Giblin, & Alexander Gilder, The Role of UN Peace Operations in Security Sector Reform and the Relationship with the Protection of Civilians
- Craig Lang, Building the Rule of Law in Post-Conflict States: International v. Mixed Model of Transitional Justice
- Jan Arno Hessbruegge, Human Rights Obligations of United Nations Peacekeepers: Implementation through the UN’s Own Policies and Remaining Challenges