Besson & Achermann: International Cooperation under the Human Right to Science

Samantha Besson (Collège de France) & Katja Achermann (Univ. of Fribourg) have published International Cooperation under the Human Right to Science (Edward Elgar Publishing 2026). This book is available open access here. Here's the abstract:

This book explores the importance of international cooperation in realising the ‘human right to science’ as enshrined in Article 15(1)(b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The need to reawaken this right has been acknowledged in recent scholarship. However, the role of international scientific cooperation for the effective realisation of the right has been, to date, overlooked.

International scientific cooperation is not only a core element of the human right to science, as recognised explicitly by Article 15(4) ICESCR, but also a concern in many other regimes of international law, such as climate change, biodiversity, AI or health law. In this book, experts in international human rights law explore the grounds, subjects, objects and the contents of the duty and responsibility of international cooperation under the human right to science. Chapters address a variety of issues ranging from the universality of science and respect for local knowledge, scientific sovereignty and self-determination, and the equitable access to and sharing of scientific benefits.

Mazibrada, Plozza, & Porsdam Mann: Innovating in uncharted terrain: on interpretation and normative legitimacy in the CESCR’s General Comment No. 25 on the right to science

Andrew Mazibrada (Univ. of Copenhagen), Monika Plozza (Univ. of Lucerne), & Sebastian Porsdam Mann (Univ. of Oxford) have posted Innovating in uncharted terrain: on interpretation and normative legitimacy in the CESCR’s General Comment No. 25 on the right to science (International Journal of Human Rights, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Science permeates almost every aspect of society, yet the human right to science remains neglected. In 2020, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights published its General Comment No. 25, intended to interpret the abstract provisions of Article 15 ICESCR. As a non-binding treaty body pronouncement, the General Comment’s reception and impact depend on its normative legitimacy – the extent to which its reasoning is coherent, determinative, transparent, systemically consistent, and adheres to international law methodologies, particularly those set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article evaluates the General Comment’s normative legitimacy and practical value by reference to three key interpretations in Article 15: ‘science’, ‘enjoy the benefits’, and ‘participation’. The General Comment, it concludes, does not represent a comprehensive interpretation, but should be seen as opening a door to state practice and, therefore, more detailed interpretation by the Committee, States parties, and domestic and international courts. Despite purporting to innovate, the Committee’s approach generally builds on pre-existing conceptualisations, further increasing its normative legitimacy. The article concludes that the future impact of the right to science can be greatly enhanced by increased attention by the Committee and by States parties.

Coneference: Science before International Tribunals: Deference or Distrust?

On October 1, 2021, the Università di Milano and the Federal University of Minas Gerais will jointly host an online conference on "Science before International Tribunals: Deference or Distrust?" The conference is co-sponsored by the Brazilian Branch of the International Law Association and the Interest Group on International Litigation of the Italian Society of International Law. The program is here. Registration is here.

Sulyok: Science and Judicial Reasoning: The Legitimacy of International Environmental Adjudication

Katalin Sulyok (ELTE Univ. - Law) has published Science and Judicial Reasoning: The Legitimacy of International Environmental Adjudication (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

Science, which inevitably underlies environmental disputes, poses significant challenges for the scientifically untrained judges who decide such cases. In addition to disrupting ordinary fact-finding and causal inquiry, science can impact the framing of disputes and the standard of review. Judges must therefore adopt various tools to adjust the level of science allowed to enter their deliberations, which may fundamentally impact the legitimacy of their reasoning. While neglecting or replacing scientific authority can erode the convincing nature of judicial reasoning, the same authority, when treated properly, may lend persuasive force to adjudicatory findings, and buttress the legitimacy of judgments. In this work, Katalin Sulyok surveys the environmental case law of seven major jurisdictions and analyzes framing techniques, evidentiary procedures, causal inquiries and standards of review, offering valuable insight into how judges justify their choices between rival scientific claims in a convincing and legitimate manner.

Event: Covid-19 and international law: science and disinformation, exceptions and emergencies

On September 10, 2020, the European Society of International Law and the Stockholm Center for International Law and Justice will hold a joint event, consisting of two panels: "Covid-19 and International Law: Science, Tech, Trolls and the Role of Information" and "Covid-19 and International Law: Emergencies, Exceptions and Regime Contestation." Details, including registration information, can be found here.

Kanetake: The Dual Vulnerability of Transnational Science-Based Standards in the National Legal Order

Machiko Kanetake (Utrecht Univ. - Law) has posted The Dual Vulnerability of Transnational Science-Based Standards in the National Legal Order (Transnational Legal Theory, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This paper highlights the scientific and political vulnerability of transnational science-based standards. Among them, this paper focuses on radiation standards formulated by the decentralised web of expert committees, international organisations, and inter-governmental forums. Transnational science-based standards are beset with scientific fragility, precisely because they provide certain regulatory stability in the scientifically uncertain areas. Their much-needed standard-setting role tends to destabilise the scientific trustworthiness of transnational standards. This scientific fragility is accompanied by political vulnerability. Transnational science-based standards are often formulated without the involvement of those private entities and individuals on whom the standards have visible consequences. To overlook the dual vulnerability is problematic, particularly when such standards are absorbed into the national legal order on the basis that they are scientifically authoritative with little need for political input. This paper exposes the domestic neglect of dual vulnerability by analysing the case of Japan. In the Japanese stories after Hiroshima-Nagasaki (1945) and Fukushima (2011), the government emphasised the scientific credibility of transnational bodies and simultaneously escaped domestic political deliberation, which, paradoxically, invited both scientific and political contestations. This paper has a specific focus; yet the issue of dual vulnerability would likely arise in many other science-based standards formulated transnationally and absorbed into the domestic legal order.

Sykes: The Appeal to Science and the Formation of Global Animal Law

Katie Sykes (Thompson Rivers Univ. - Law) has posted The Appeal to Science and the Formation of Global Animal Law (European Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

In 2014, two landmark international legal decisions made a significant contribution to the development of international law on the protection of animals: the report of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in EC-Seal Products, and the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Whaling in the Antarctic: Australia v. Japan. Science plays a significant role in both decisions. In EC-Seal Products, the WTO Appellate Body ruled that the European Union’s ban on seal products was justifiable under Article XX(a) of GATT as a matter of public morals, because it was based on European citizens’ moral objections to cruelty in seal hunting – concerns that were validated in part based on reports and evidence from scientific experts. In Whaling in the Antarctic, the ICJ ruled that Japan’s whaling programme in the Southern Ocean is not ‘for purposes of scientific research’ within the meaning of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling because it is not ‘reasonable’ in relation to its research objectives. Both cases, as well as the broader international controversies over whaling and sealing in the context of which they arose, illustrate the persuasive power of the ‘appeal to science’: enlisting scientific objectivity and rigour to underpin the credibility of legal arguments and legal norms. But the role of science in both cases, while important, is only auxiliary. The questions that the WTO and the ICJ had to resolve were fundamentally legal ones concerning the interpretation of the relevant treaties. The cases also implicated more profound questions of policy and ethics at stake in international conflicts over the protection and the exploitation of marine mammals.