Workshop: Paparinskis on "Crippling Compensation after the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Case"

On February 23, 2022, the Athens PIL Discussion Group will host an online discussion with Martins Paparinskis (Univ. College London - Law) on "Crippling Compensation after the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo Case." Details are here.

Stoica: Remedies before the International Court of Justice: A Systemic Analysis

Victor Stoica (Univ. of Bucharest - Law) has published Remedies before the International Court of Justice: A Systemic Analysis (Cambridge Univ. Press 2021). Here's the abstract:

Understanding exactly how the International Court of Justice applies the remedies of international law is vital in order to determine its prioritisation of remedies and its rationales for resolving inter-state disputes. This analysis also shows whether the framework of remedies of international law, designed by the International Law Commission through the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, is strictly observed by the International Court of Justice. This is among the few systemic studies in the field of remedies, contrasting the theoretical controversies with a complete survey of the large set of requests that have been submitted before the ICJ. International lawyers, agents of states and diplomats will be able to identify the relevant case-law for each remedy in order to frame more effective requests to the Court.

Call for Papers: Rethinking Reparations in International Law (Reminder)

A reminder that a call for papers has been issued for a workshop on "Rethinking Reparation in International Law," to take place in November 2018, at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. The deadline is April 30, 2018. Here's the call:

Call for Papers: Rethinking Reparations in International Law

What role do reparations play in international law today? What is the theory behind reparations in different areas/systems of international law? Do reparations play a different role in different areas of international law (human rights, investment law)? How are reparations chosen by judges and arbitrators and how are damages calculated? What is the link between efficiency and reparations? How can reparations be made more efficient? How do judges/arbitrators understand their role in relation to reparations?

These questions will be at the centre of an ESIL-sponsored workshop held at the Lauterpacht Centre, University of Cambridge in November 2018. The workshop will seek to address the recent developments and scholarship in the area of reparations (remedies) in international law. It will bring together scholars writing on theory of reparations, those conducting empirical or comparative research, as well as practitioners, judges and arbitrators. The aim is to provide a platform for discussion of new ideas about efficiency of reparations in international law.

At this point, we would like to invite scholars and practitioners working in the area, to submit a max. 400-word abstract to Dr Veronika Fikfak at vf243@cam.ac.uk. The deadline for submission is 30 April 2018. Abstracts will be selected by early June. Papers for the workshop will have to be submitted by mid-September.

The workshop is part of a larger project on Damages for Human Rights Violations funded by the ESRC. It is organised by Dr Veronika Fikfak, Lauterpacht Centre, University of Cambridge and Professor Photini Pazartzis, Athens Public International Law Centre, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. The aim is to publish suitable contributions as an edited collection or special edition of an international journal. Papers with an empirical or comparative approach are particularly welcome.

Call for Papers: Rethinking Reparations in International Law

A call for papers has been issued for a workshop on "Rethinking Reparation in International Law," to take place in November 2018, at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. Here's the call:

Call for Papers: Rethinking Reparations in International Law

What role do reparations play in international law today? What is the theory behind reparations in different areas/systems of international law? Do reparations play a different role in different areas of international law (human rights, investment law)? How are reparations chosen by judges and arbitrators and how are damages calculated? What is the link between efficiency and reparations? How can reparations be made more efficient? How do judges/arbitrators understand their role in relation to reparations?

These questions will be at the centre of an ESIL-sponsored workshop held at the Lauterpacht Centre, University of Cambridge in November 2018. The workshop will seek to address the recent developments and scholarship in the area of reparations (remedies) in international law. It will bring together scholars writing on theory of reparations, those conducting empirical or comparative research, as well as practitioners, judges and arbitrators. The aim is to provide a platform for discussion of new ideas about efficiency of reparations in international law.

At this point, we would like to invite scholars and practitioners working in the area, to submit a max. 400-word abstract to Dr Veronika Fikfak at vf243@cam.ac.uk. The deadline for submission is 30 April 2018. Abstracts will be selected by early June. Papers for the workshop will have to be submitted by mid-September.

The workshop is part of a larger project on Damages for Human Rights Violations funded by the ESRC. It is organised by Dr Veronika Fikfak, Lauterpacht Centre, University of Cambridge and Professor Photini Pazartzis, Athens Public International Law Centre, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. The aim is to publish suitable contributions as an edited collection or special edition of an international journal. Papers with an empirical or comparative approach are particularly welcome.

Mayer: Less-than-Full Reparation in International Law

Benoit Mayer (Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong - Law) has posted Less-than-Full Reparation in International Law (Indian Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is generally under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by this act. This article argues however that there are general limitations to the obligation to make full reparation. It reviews the practice of States in endorsing less-than-full reparation or even actively campaigning against full reparation in certain circumstances. It also notes the importance of the recognition of less-than-full reparation by judges and scholars in order, in particular, to facilitate the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Lastly, it identifies three alternative criteria explaining less-than-full reparation.

Gray: Remedies in International Dispute Settlement

Christine Gray (Univ. of Cambridge - Law) has posted Remedies in International Dispute Settlement. Here's the abstract:

There have been two major developments affecting international law on remedies in the last twenty years: the proliferation of tribunals and the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. These developments make it timely to revisit the question I first examined in 1985, whether there is an international law of remedies. Does the diversity of tribunals mean that they have awarded different types of remedies or taken different approaches? How far have the guidelines in the ILC Articles brought uniformity? The paper examines these questions in the light of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the WTO Appellate Body, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the UNCC, regional human rights courts and other tribunals.

Sabahi: Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration

Borzu Sabahi (Fulbright & Jaworski LLP) has published Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration: Principles and Practice (Oxford Univ. Press 2011). Here's the abstract:

This book examines the history, principles, and practice of awarding compensation and restitution in investor-State arbitration disputes, which are initiated under investment treaties. The principles discussed may be applied to all international law cases where damage to property is an issue.

The book starts by tracing the roots of the applicable international legal principles to Roman law, and from there follows their evolution through the European law of extra-contractual liability and eventually through the Chorzów Factory case to principles of compensation and restitution in the modern law of international investment.

The greater part of the book is then dedicated to examination of the modern application of these principles, focusing on the jurisprudence of international tribunals under various arbitral rules such as ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules. Monetary compensation as the prevalent form of remedy sought and awarded in investor-State disputes is discussed in more detail, including topics such as the amount of compensation for damage resulting from breach of investment treaties or for lawful expropriation of foreign investor's property, a brief overview of valuation methods, supplementary compensation for moral damages, interest, costs, and currency fluctuations as well as various principles that may limit the amount of recoverable compensation, such as causation. A full chapter is dedicated to the discussion of the theory and practice of awarding restitution in investor-State disputes. The book also covers the general principle of reparation in international law as applied in investor-State arbitrations. The topics discussed cover all the theoretical as well as practical issues which may be raised in awarding compensation and restitution in investment treaty disputes between States and foreign investors.

Mégret: The International Criminal Court and the Failure to Mention Symbolic Reparations

Frédéric Mégret (McGill Univ. - Law) has posted The International Criminal Court and the Failure to Mention Symbolic Reparations. Here's the abstract:

The International Criminal Court (ICC)'s reparations regime seems very geared towards material reparations such as restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. However, a growing number of international instruments, particularly in the human rights field, anticipate that more symbolic forms of reparation such as satisfaction and non-repetition are mandatory. The Article explores what reasons may have led the ICC drafters to not even at least mention symbolic reparations and finds that, apart from a possible trend towards commodification of reparations in general, the perception was probably that only states can grant symbolic reparations, and that ordering individuals to do so might raise human rights problems. None of these arguments are conclusive. Individuals can provide symbolic reparations, and these could be encouraged rather than ordered to avoid the human rights issue. More importantly, the role of the ICC and the Victims Trust Fund will be to use monies as reparation, and nothing will prevent them from using awards so made for symbolic purposes. In fact, strong principle and policy arguments militate in favor of granting a larger role to symbolic reparations in the ICC context, thus helping to make the Court into more of an institution of transitional justice.