HUMAN RIGHTS AND EMPIRE: GRADUATE CONFERENCE
Thursday and Friday, May 19-20, 2016Keynote by Antony Anghie, University of Utah
“Colonialism and the Future of Human Rights”Imperial powers have often been among the most vocal advocates of human rights. Are human rights ideals in tension with imperialism, or might such ideals in fact be implicated in imperial projects? Especially if such ideals have been complicit in empire, can invocations of human rights still be useful in opposing imperial and racial domination? How does the history of human rights relate to the history of imperialism and decolonization?
This conference will bring together graduate students working with a range of theoretical and historical approaches to address the politics of human rights in relation to race and empire. Potential topics include (but are not limited to) the relationship between liberalism and empire; questions of intervention and sovereignty; narratives of nationhood in human rights discourse; the place of international law in past and contemporary forms of imperialism; international imaginaries and forms of solidarity beyond the nation-state; and connections between human rights, sovereignty, and self-determination.
This conference will run for a day and a half, starting mid-afternoon on Thursday, May 19th and ending early Friday evening, May 20th, 2016. It will include up to six workshop-style sessions on pre-circulated graduate student papers, as well as a Thursday evening keynote talk by Antony Anghie (University of Utah) on “Colonialism and the Future of Human Rights.” Each session will begin with comments from a University of Chicago graduate student discussant. The presenter will have time to respond to discussant comments before opening the conversation to the wider group.
Full schedule to be released in late March 2016.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Paper proposals, including a title and an abstract of approximately 500 words, are due by Tuesday, March 1 at 9:00am CST using the webform below. Notifications will be sent by mid-March. University of Chicago graduate students are welcome to apply; however, preference will be given to external applicants. The conference will cover the cost of lodging in shared rooms for out of town presenters. A limited amount of travel funding is available for participants who cannot secure funding from their home institution.
Those presenting papers will be expected to send their paper draft to the conference organizer for circulation to participants by Monday, May 9th. They are also expected to read all papers and attend all sessions. Travel plans should include arriving in Chicago by 12noon on Thursday, May 19th and depart no earlier than 7pm on Friday, May 20th.
>> CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT PAPER PROPOSAL. DUE MARCH 1 at 9AM CST.
QUESTIONS
Contact Emma Stone Mackinnon, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science and Human Rights Workshop Co-Coordinator
16th Annual WTO Conference
10 & 11 June 2016
Call for Papers
The Annual WTO Conference was originally established in 2000 through a partnership between the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL) at the Georgetown University Law Center. The 16th edition of the Conference is organized jointly by BIICL, IIEL, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL). As originally established by University Professor John H. Jackson of Georgetown, and Professor Sir Francis Jacobs, KCMG, QC, a Trustee of BIICL, the Annual WTO Conference has a longstanding affiliation with the Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL), published by the Oxford University Press. The Annual WTO Conference is one of the most important and prestigious conferences addressing developments in international trade law, pursuing cutting-edge issues of interest to academics and practitioners alike.
To celebrate the life and achievements of Professor Jackson, who passed away in 2015, the Conference will be held in Geneva this year (not London), with a special tribute at the WTO Headquarters, the second day of the Conference, in honour of Professor Jackson.
The Annual WTO Conference has traditionally selected speakers by invitation only; like last year, however, the organizers have decided to conduct a call for papers aimed at opening opportunities especially for younger scholars to present their research and analysis at the Conference. The organizers will consider proposals, in the form of an abstract or a completed short paper, submitted on or before 14 March 2016, for inclusion on the panels being organized on the following five topics:
1. LEGAL INNOVATION IN TPP AND OTHER “DEEP” FTAs: TOWARD A “COMMON LAW” OF FTAs OR SUBSTANTIVE FRAGMENTATION ON “NEW ISSUES”?
The conclusion in fall 2015 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a major landmark. Other “deep” FTAs such as CETA or the EU-Singapore agreement have also been concluded, and more are under negotiation (TTIP, TiSA, RCEP etc.). What legal/rule innovation can be found in and across these 21st century trade agreements, both at the institutional and the substantive or procedural level (including dispute settlement)? Are some “new issues” (e.g. e-commerce, investment, corruption, data flows, environment, competition, labor, SOEs, regulatory cooperation) dealt with in all of these agreements and in similar ways, making some of them possible candidates for a multilateral or at least plurilateral approach? Where, in contrast, reside the major differences, both on substantive and institutional issues and why are they there? Are some FTAs more open or “WTO friendly” than others? Is the trend one of consolidation toward something of a “common law of international trade” (the term used by J.H.H. Weiler in a 2001 edited book) or rather one of fragmentation with deepening divisions especially on “new issues”?
2. INTERPRETING “OLD” WTO RULES IN A WORLD OF NEW FTAs AND OTHER NORM DEVELOPMENTS OUTSIDE THE WTO TREATY
In a recent ruling (Peru – Agricultural Products, DS457), the WTO Appellate Body addressed the potential impact of a bilateral free trade agreement on the interpretation of WTO rules between the disputing parties. In a context where WTO treaty updates are stalled, can or should the AB interpret 20 years-old WTO rules to accommodate new developments, be it new clarifications in post-1995 WTO declarations or committee decisions (outside of the formal WTO treaty), party agreements to settle disputes outside the WTO or substantive rules in FTAs or multilateral environmental agreements (such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change)? If the AB sticks strictly to the “old rules” does it risk losing credibility or even becoming obsolete? Or, conversely, would reference to such “outside sources” depart from the AB’s original purpose and risk undermining its hard-fought authority? Is it the AB’s task to bring some clarity and order in the world of overlapping trade agreements, or should the AB “do what it does best” and consider only WTO rules and defend those rules against “outside interference”? How can treaty interpretation in this evolving legal context remain objective and predictable? What is the role of competing dispute settlement fora under other trade and investment agreements?
3. GLOBAL TAX REFORMS & DISPUTES AT THE INTERSECTION OF TRADE AND DIRECT TAXATION OF MULTINATIONALS
In October 2015, OECD members agreed on major new tax rules to address tax avoidance and increase tax transparency (the so-called Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Package). At the same time, Panama filed a noted WTO complaint (DS453) against Argentina for “blacklisting” Panama as a tax haven and imposing certain allegedly trade restrictive measures against it (Appellate Body report expected in the first half of 2016). Also, in another move to counter unfair or illegal tax practices of multinationals, the EU Commission is examining the tax treatment offered by certain EU countries to certain multinationals as potential state-aid/subsidization, and by the end of January 2016 it will have proposed a new set of binding rules to curb corporate tax avoidance. These global tax reforms and disputes will likely have an important impact on multinationals and how countries divide tax revenues. How do updated tax rules interrelate with existing trade rules? Could the WTO (e.g. the traditional arms-length principle in the Subsidies Agreement) be used to stall the implementation of some of these tax reforms (e.g. in respect of BEPS transfer pricing rules which move away from the traditional arms-length principle)? Or rather is there scope to use WTO dispute settlement (e.g. national treatment disciplines in GATT and GATS) to enforce some of these tax reforms or to settle direct taxation disputes between WTO members in the absence of binding dispute settlement in the international tax arena? What is the continued relevance in this context of the direct v. indirect taxation distinction?
4. THE WTO APPELLATE BODY: AN EXAMPLE TO SHUN OR TO FOLLOW?
At the 20th anniversary of the WTO, most observers are celebrating the achievements of WTO dispute settlement and the WTO Appellate Body (AB) in particular. In ongoing efforts to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) some countries have even urged to copy the AB model including AB appointment and remuneration rules. Other voices have strongly criticized the AB for an obsessive textual approach or, conversely, expansive activism or “subjective” interpretations, reading new obligations into the WTO treaty. When the AB “clarifies” ambiguities, does it assist WTO members or rather make future negotiations more difficult (as negotiators may refuse to conclude a deal with any ambiguity in it for fear that the AB will “complete the contract” in some unexpected way)? Yet others have stated that rather than clarifying WTO rules and making them more predictable, the AB has complicated compliance and reduced predictability especially in the trade remedies field. Has the AB gone out of bounds or been too conservative? Has WTO dispute settlement clarified or complicated the WTO treaty? Is the AB respecting the same standard of review in all disputes (e.g., comparing the non-interventionist standard of review in EC - Hormones II with that in the zeroing disputes and the recent US – Tuna II 21.5 AB report)? Is the standard “recommendation”, after lengthy and complex legal findings, to “bring the measure into compliance” specific enough or too vague (and inviting even more complicated 21.5 compliance proceedings where claimants may get to relitigate the entire case)? After 20 years, does WTO dispute settlement remain an attractive proposition for the private sector affected by trade barriers? Is its success spread equally across agreements and WTO members, or have WTO disputes been filed selectively in some areas and against some countries leaving “black holes” elsewhere?
5. WTO NEGOTIATIONS POST-NAIROBI: WHAT? HOW? WHEN?
The 10th WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Kenya, resulted in a series of discrete, substantive commitments (e.g. on export competition) but disagreement on what to discuss next and in what format, in terms of WTO negotiations post-Nairobi. How can negotiations on outstanding “old issues” (e.g. domestic farm subsidies) be completed? What “new issues” can realistically be taken on board, how and when, if at all? Should negotiations be issue-specific or continue to be “package deals” with bargains across subject matters? Given the complexity and time it takes for formal WTO amendments (e.g. the TRIPS amendment) or new treaties (e.g. the Trade Facilitation Agreement) to enter into force, how can the WTO remain relevant and engage in effective rulemaking or rule clarification? Can new commitments, for example, be taken on in mere “ministerial declarations” but are they subject then to WTO dispute settlement and sufficient domestic scrutiny and democratic support?
It is expected that each panelist will be allotted approximately 15 minutes to present his or her paper, and that a question and answer period will follow.
Proposers must be available to attend the Conference in Geneva on 10 & 11 June 2015.
Everyone is eligible to submit proposals but a preference will be given to current graduate students, and academics and practitioners who completed their most recent academic qualification after June 2008. Proposals should be prepared for anonymous review, should identify which of the five panel themes they fall under and should be submitted in PDF or Word format to Mr. Manuel Sanchez, at his email: manuel.sanchez@graduateinstitute.ch. Emails should have “16th ANNUAL WTO CONFERENCE PROPOSAL” in the subject line and should include the proposal title in the body of the email. No identifying information should be included in the attached proposal. Proposers should certify their availability to attend the Conference in Geneva on June 10 and 11, 2016, in the body of the email, and should attach a brief CV of the proposer that includes the dates of award of relevant academic qualifications. The organizers will make every effort to respond to all proposals by the end of March.
If the author so wishes, selected papers will be considered for subsequent publication in the JIEL. Proposers should be aware that if their paper is selected for publication it may be necessary to expand the paper to publishable length in a relatively short time frame.
Successful proposers will have Conference fees waived, and will be invited to attend the annual dinner for speakers on Friday night (10 June). The organizers regret that they do not normally have funding available for travel or lodging expenses. In exceptional cases, however, requests for (partial) funding of travel and/or lodging expenses will be considered, in particular from proposers based in developing countries.
The book reconciles the conflicts and legal ambiguities between African Union and ECOWAS law on the use of force on the one hand, and the UN Charter and international law on the other hand. In view of questions relating to African Union and UN relationship in the maintenance of international peace and security in Africa in recent years, the book examines the legal issues involved and how they can be resolved. By explaining the legal theory underpinning the validity of the AU-ECOWAS laws, the work provides a legal basis for the adoption of the AU-ECOWAS laws as the frameworks for the implementation of the R2P in Africa.
25th Annual SLS-BIICL Conference
on Theory and International Law
a special collaboration with the European Society of International Law’s
Interest Group on International Legal Theory
Monday 25th April 2016, 14:00-19:00
British Institute of International and Comparative Law,
Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP
Call for Papers and Invitation to Attend
Beyond our comfort zone?
Situating the authority of international lawyers, institutions,
& other international actors.The SLS/BIICL Conference on Theory and International Law is celebrating its Silver Jubilee in 2016. To that end, this year, the SLS International Law Section is holding a special 25th anniversary conference, organised in collaboration with the Interest Group on International Legal Theory of the European Society of International Law (ESIL IGILT), on 25th April 2016. We are delighted to announce that The Honourable Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, will deliver the keynote address.
The 2016 theme reflects an enduring question: the concept of authority in international law. That the international legal system is a legal system properly socalled should by now be an accepted fact: even if not always and universally enforced, the validity of international legal rules functions itself as a reason for compliance, quite independently of the nature or character of the actions to be done. The legitimacy of international law, therefore, derives from more than the consent to be bound.
However, the systematic character of international law raises a number of interesting questions: what are the formal characteristics of international law that justify our understanding of it as an autonomous legal system? Who are the institutions, officials and agents that are endowed with the authority to interpret, apply, and enforce international law? What is the role of international lawyers in the construction of authority in the international legal system? Our technical fluency in the vocabulary of international law positions us not only as the custodians of the international legal order, but also enables us to speak out on behalf of international law in many distinct areas of international relations. Accordingly, international lawyers go beyond serving as judges, arbitrators, and advocates: often, they participate in mandates which exceed the strict remit of legal expertise, serving on fact-finding missions, commissions of enquiry, or diplomatic negotiations. International lawyers bask, therefore, in the reflected authority of the international legal system they themselves have worked to construct and to sustain.
Another point to consider is the nature of non-legal expertise, and how the international legal system grapples with claims to non-legal authority. The obvious, most illustrative examples relate to international lawyers’ grappling with scientific or technical expertise, most prominently at the WTO but increasingly in judicial institutions of general jurisdiction. It might also be asked whether international lawyers should more broadly embrace such external expertise, and what the impact might be upon their authority in doing so? How are claims to expertise cognised, evaluated or legitimated within the practice of international law? Has the emergence of increasingly complex disputes led to intervenors/amici curiae becoming an indispensable element of international legal proceedings? Can lawyers still ‘go it alone’ without the aid and assistance of technical, scientific or academic expertise, or does the authority of the legal system diminish in relation to its claims to autonomy?
The conference convenors welcome contributions on the concept of authority in international law, including, but not limited to:
- Theorising about the nature of authority, its relationship to legitimacy and power, and how authority serves to justify the validity of international legal rules;
- The responsibility of international legal officials (judges, legal officers in international organisations, State legal representatives, international legal practitioners) in upholding the international legal system;
- The role of international lawyers in performing functions not necessarily linked to their expertise in international law, in particular political, diplomatic or advisory functions, serving on commissions of inquiry, etc;
- The interaction between international lawyers and experts in other fields, in particular those of a scientific or technical character, and the nature of that interaction in, for example, disputes concerning the environment, cyber, surveillance, etc; and
- The role of amici curiae in international legal proceedings, the risks and rewards of inviting non-legal expertise into the courtroom.
Application process
A selection committee has been composed of members of the coordinating committees of the International Law section of the Society of Legal Scholars and the IGILT. Submission of abstracts is open to academics, including graduate students, and to legal practitioners.
Please submit an abstract in Word or PDF of no more than one page to all three email addresses below:
Dr Philippa Webb (philippa.webb@kcl.ac.uk)
Professor Christian Henderson (C.M.Henderson@sussex.ac.uk)
Dr Gleider Hernández (g.i.hernandez@durham.ac.uk)The following information should also be provided with each abstract:
- The author’s name and affiliation
- The author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications
- The author’s contact details, including email address and phone number
The deadline for submission of abstracts is 29th February 2016. Applicants will be informed no later than 15th March 2016.
Regrettably, we are unable to provide funding for travel to and attendance at the conference, but thanks to some generous funding from the Durham Global Policy Institute, a conference dinner for speakers will be organised.
Philippa Webb
Christian Henderson
Gleider HernándezThe convenors are grateful for the material and financial assistance of the SLS, BIICL, and the Durham Global Policy Institute.
Science, Technology, and New Challenges to Ocean Law offers fresh perspectives on a set of vital issues in the field of ocean law and policy. Since the early period of the industrial revolution, successive waves of revolutionary scientific discoveries and technological innovations have intensified the global population’s exploitation of ocean and coastal resources. In this volume, several leading authorities in the field address major dimensions of the interface of science, technology and ocean law—both historically and in current-day perspective—and emergent challenges in legal ordering of ocean uses for sustainability and equitability. Among the topics that are analysed in these readable, accessible papers are ecosystem approaches to resource management, the historic interplay of science and military concerns, the place of science in dispute-settlement processes, the varied human uses of the seabed, the roles in ocean governance of indigenous peoples, legal issues in fisheries management and conservation, and special regional problems of the Arctic, the Bering Strait, the South China Sea, and the eastern Mediterranean. The urgent importance of the subjects addressed here, together with the variety of disciplinary approaches deployed by the authors, enhance the value of this book’s unique contribution to the literature of ocean studies.
This three-volume Manual on International Maritime Law presents a systematic analysis of the history and contemporary development of international maritime law by leading contributors from across the world. Prepared in cooperation with the International Maritime Law Institute, the International Maritime Organization's research and training institute, this a uniquely comprehensive study of this fundamental area of international law.
Volume II: Shipping Law provides a detailed understanding of the historical development of shipping law looking at concepts, sources, and international organisations relating to shipping law; nationality, registration and ownership of ships; ship sale and shipping contracts; ship management and ship finance; arrest of ships; international trade and shipping documents; carriage of goods, passengers and their luggage by sea; maritime labour law; law of maritime safety; law of marine collisions; law of salvage; law of wrecks; law of general average; law of towage; law of harbours and pilotage; limitation of liability for maritime claims; and law of marine insurance.
Staatsnahe Unternehmen als hybride, zwischen öffentlicher und privater Sphäre agierende Akteure, beschäftigen die Rechtswissenschaft und -praxis schon seit langer Zeit. Aktuell stellt sich gerade im Internationalen Investitionsrecht vermehrt die Frage der Zurechnung der Handlungen solcher Unternehmen zum Staat. Denn wird ein Investor durch ein staatsnahes Unternehmen geschädigt, ist er durch investitionsrechtliche und/oder weitere völkerrechtliche Standards nur geschützt, wenn die Unternehmenshandlungen als solche des Staates angesehen werden können.
Der Autor analysiert die Kriterien, anhand derer die Frage der Handlungszurechnung zu bewerten ist. Hierzu erfolgt eine Analyse der Regeln des Völkergewohnheitsrechts sowie eine umfassende Auswertung der Rechtsprechung investitionsrechtlicher Schiedsgerichte, der Welthandelsorganisation, des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs. Auch völkervertragliche lex specialis zur Zurechnung werden erörtert.
Demi-journée d’étude organisée par le Bureau des Jeunes Chercheurs de la SFDI
LE 15 AVRIL 2016
à l’Université de Paris-8 Vincennes-Saint-Denis
Cette année, le colloque annuel de la Société Française pour le Droit International (SFDI) qui se tiendra du 19 au 21 mai 2016, aura pour thème « L’ENTREPRISE MULTINATIONALE ET LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL »
Le Bureau des Jeunes Chercheurs organise une demi-journée d’étude destinées aux jeunes doctorants et docteurs sur le thème général « Entreprises multinationales et responsabilité(s) ».
La demi-journée sera présidée et parrainée par M. Vincent Tomkiewicz.
Nous vous invitons les doctorants et jeunes docteurs en droit international public & privé à nous faire part de leurs propositions. Celles-ci pourront concerner la production normative des entreprises multinationales dans le cadre de la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises, la responsabilité des entreprises multinationales, les mécanismes et fora d’activation de la responsabilité ainsi que toute autre question en lien avec le thème général.
Les communications dureront 20 minutes chacune et seront suivies d’un débat. Elles donneront lieu, par la suite, à la publication sur le site de la SFDI.
Nous appelons l’attention des éventuels candidats sur les points suivants :
- Cet appel est différent de l’appel officiel à contributions pour les ateliers qui se tiendront lors du colloque annuel. Les candidats peuvent proposer une contribution à la demi-journée ou au colloque annuel, ou bien aux deux, étant entendu que les jeunes chercheurs retenus pour le colloque annuel seront invités à présenter leur contribution le 15 avril en « avant-première » (et ne présenteront dans ce cas pas de contribution différente à la demi-journée) ;
- Aucun financement (déplacements, restauration, hébergement) n’est normalement prévu pour les demi-journées. Il est donc indispensable que les futurs retenus recherchent un financement auprès de leurs écoles doctorales et centres de recherches spécifiques. Des exceptions, motivées, peuvent être étudiées par le Bureau des jeunes chercheurs.
Les propositions de communication (en français ou en anglais) devront comporter un titre et un résumé de 2 pages maximum. Un curriculum vitae sera transmis séparément. Il sera exigé des candidats à une contribution en langue anglaise une très bonne compréhension du français à l’oral, l’essentiel des débats devant se dérouler dans cette langue.
Elles devront être envoyées au format .doc pour le 29 février 2016 aux responsables du BJC à l’adresse suivante : jeunes.chercheurs@sfdi.org
En espérant vous voir nombreux !
CALENDRIER INDICATIF :
- 29 Février 2016 Date limite d’envoi des propositions de contributions
- 7 Mars 2016 Communication des contributions retenues
- 15 Avril 2016 Demi-Journée d’étude
- 15 Juin 2016 Rendu des contributions écrites
- Été 2016 Publication des contributions écrites sur le site de la SFDI
The latest issue of Legal Issues of Economic Integration (Vol. 43, no. 1, 2016) is out. Contents include:
The book is a comprehensive narration of the use of expertise in international criminal trials offering reflection on standards concerning the quality and presentation of expert evidence. It analyzes and critiques the rules governing expert evidence in international criminal trials and the strategies employed by counsel and courts relying upon expert evidence and challenges that courts face determining its reliability. In particular, the author considers how the procedural and evidentiary architecture of international criminal courts and tribunals influences the courts’ ability to meaningfully incorporate expert evidence into the rational fact-finding process.
The book provides analysis of the unique properties of expert evidence as compared with other forms of evidence and the challenges that these properties present for fact-finding in international criminal trials. It draws conclusions about the extent to which particularized evidentiary rules for expert evidence in international criminal trials is wanting. Based on comparative analyses of relevant national practices, the book proposes procedural improvements to address some of the challenges associated with the use of expertise in international criminal trials.
Sustainable development is a normative concept that was conceived of as a paradigm for reconciling competing and conflicting interests in economic development, social justice and environmental protection. In legal terms, sustainable development has been portrayed in manifold ways. Some view it as a normative matrix for re-interpreting existing legal principles and rules and fostering the emergence of new ones, or as a meta-legal principle that exerts interstitial normativity. Others describe it as a decision-making framework for maintaining and achieving human well-being. Yet, the perception seems to spread in academia and civil society that, as a normative concept, sustainable development may already have seen its best days. Instead, renewed claims for the reparation of historical wrongs and the promotion of procedural fairness and distributive justice in international environmental law are increasingly gaining salience. Is sustainable development still a suitable concept to address these claims? What normative and/or institutional changes are required in different areas of international environmental law and governance to tackle these demands and promote social fairness and environmental sustainability?
The organizing committee welcomes paper and poster proposals that address the overall theme of the colloquium. In so doing, paper and poster proposals may focus on any of the following topics in this non-exhaustive list:
- Climate change and law
- Environmental liability
- Energy law
- Indigenous people and the environment
- Ecological debt
- Economy and the environment
- Human rights and the environment
- Natural resources protection
- Environmental justice, ethics and global governance
- Gender and the environment
Those interested in presenting should submit an abstract of no more than 400 words by 31st January 2016 7th February 2016, indicating whether it is intended for oral or poster presentation. The official language of the TIEC is English. All abstracts and posters must be presented in English. The authors of abstracts selected for oral presentation will not be expected to submit completed papers. However, we do encourage interested authors to submit completed papers which will be considered for publication in the Catalan Environmental Law Journal (Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental).
This article examines under what conditions benchmarking and associated measurement initiatives produced by UN human rights actors could, and should, play a role in promoting compliance with international human rights norms. It is organised around a comparative analysis of UN benchmarking initiatives for states and corporations. With regard to states, the article argues that ideological misgivings and technical limitations have so far triumphed over aspirations that indicators and benchmarks might play a significant role in increasing compliance with international human rights norms. With regard to corporations, we find that measuring human rights performance has been framed by the recent UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights using a much more expansive and less quantitative set of benchmarks. These latter benchmarks do not appear to be creating conditions under which the human rights performance of corporations is effectively interrogated, and as a result there is a danger of superficial legitimation. Comparative analysis of these two initiatives reveals some of the tensions inherent in utilising benchmarking in transnational efforts to achieve human rights compliance. It also allows us to contribute to broader debates about the quantification of performance and its potential and limitations as a tool of global governance.
This conference will host two panels: ‘Cultural Heritage in the Crossfire: Reality and Effectiveness of Protection Efforts’ and ‘Art and Cultural Heritage: What Is the Role for Ethics?’. The aim of the conference is to take stock of, and to further contribute to the recent discussions regarding the protection of cultural heritage from damage and the role of ethics in the art world. In particular, the Art-Law Centre is interested in papers pursuing normative, empirical, comparative or theoretical approaches. We welcome contributions from law and other disciplines, including philosophy, criminology, archaeology and history.
The panel ‘Cultural Heritage in the Crossfire: Reality and Effectiveness of Protection Efforts’ shall focus on the protection of cultural heritage from damage arising not only from war-like situations and intentional attacks, but also from non-violent processes, such as the realization of development projects and natural calamities. Therefore papers are requested on, but not limited to, the following topics: cultural genocide; State responsibility; individual criminal responsibility; the role of the International Criminal Court; illicit trafficking and money laundering; the protection of cultural heritage from acts of terrorism; the safeguarding of cultural heritage from natural and human-induced disasters.
The panel ‘Art and Cultural Heritage: What Is the Role for Ethics?’ shall discuss art and cultural heritage issues which cannot be solved, in whole or in part, by legal rules, and analyse the value of soft law in this regard. Subjects covered in papers may include, but are not limited to: the responsibilities of cultural institutions; the legal relevance of ethics; restitution; restoration and conservation; heritage as a common good; sponsorship; governance of cultural institutions; cultural heritage and human rights; stewardship; cultural heritage in the digital age; the challenges posed by the evolving definition of cultural heritage.
Academics and practitioners from all regions of the world are invited to submit papers approaching these themes from various angles with the aim to (a) develop new conceptualizations, (b) engage in a cross-disciplinary debate, or (c) identify new directions for education and research.
Paper proposals should include a title, an abstract no longer than 300 words, and should be accompanied by a short biography and full contact details of the author, including institutional affiliation, mailing address and e-mail address. In the case of co-authored papers, one person should be identified as the corresponding author. Due to restrictions of space on the conference schedule, multiple submissions by the same author are not accepted.
Paper proposals should be emailed to the Art-Law Centre’s team at art-adr@unige.ch by 29 February 2016. Successful applicants will be notified by 14 March 2016, and would be required to submit a summary of their presentation by 23 May 2016.
The Conference will take place at the University of Geneva. Speakers will be required to meet the cost of travel and accommodation.
All participants are expected to contribute with an original and unpublished article to an edited publication that will form the intended output of this workshop. The deadline for the submission of the papers is 30 September 2016.
The latest volume of the Finnish Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 23, 2012-2013) is out. Contents include:
This Chapter introduces the concept of semantic authority, defined as an actor’s capacity to find acceptance for its interpretative claims or to establish its own statements about the law as content-laden reference points for legal discourse that others can hardly escape. In order to both clarify its heritage and its novelty. The Chapter first provides an account of the theoretical context in which the concept of semantic authority is embedded — the lines of thinking in whose wake the concept starts making sense (II.). The concept is above all indebted to understandings of (international) law as a product of its communicative practice. In contrast to similar past and present voices, however, it purports to highlight the powerful actors in legal discourse so as to anchor critique and normative inquiry. Second, the Chapter clarifies the nature of semantic authority and the dynamics that sustain it (III.). While persuasiveness can increase an actor’s semantic authority, it is a constitutive feature of such authority that it must persist in the absence of agreement in substance. What is more, while semantic authority thrives on sociological legitimacy, it is a separate question of whether it is indeed well justified. Among the factors that sustain it, it is the capacity to link up with tradition that stands out. Third and finally, the chapter summarizes the concept’s trajectory — what has been done with it and how it might still develop further (IV.).
