New Issue: Journal of International Dispute Settlement

The latest issue of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement (Vol. 8, no. 1, March 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Cameron A. Miles, Provisional Measures and the Margin of Appreciation before the International Court of Justice
• Massimo Lando, Compliance with Provisional Measures Indicated by the International Court of Justice
• Christina L. Beharry, Prejudgment Interest Rates in International Investment Arbitration
• Nitish Monebhurrun, Novelty in International Investment Law: The Brazilian Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments as a Different International Investment Agreement Model
• Daniela Páez-Salgado, Settlements in Investor–State Arbitration: Are Minority Shareholders Precluded from Having its Treaty Claims Adjudicated?
• Charalampos Giannakopoulos, Reconceptualizing ‘Failure to State Reasons’ as a Ground for Annulment under Article 52(1)(e) of the ICSID Convention
• Patrick Dumberry, Has the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Become a Rule of Customary International Law?

Wang: The RCEP and Its Investment Rules: Learning from Past Chinese FTAs

Heng Wang (Univ. of New South Wales- Law) has posted The RCEP and Its Investment Rules: Learning from Past Chinese FTAs (Chinese Journal of Global Governance, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

China’s FTAs reveal malleability as the most striking feature. The paper analyzes the following questions: what is the trend of China’s FTA approach to investment concerning malleability? Is China a rule follower, shaker or maker? How may China approach the RCEP regarding investment? It argues first that the malleability will probably expand from investment protection to investment liberalization. China converges with deep FTAs regarding investment protection and may incrementally move to investment liberalization. Second, increased malleability of China’s FTAs exists in regulatory autonomy and investor-state dispute settlement. Third, China is likely to be a rule shaker in the short to medium term, and become a rule maker later if challenges are addressed. Its approach may evolve from selective adaption to selective innovation. Finally, the RCEP may adopt low-level investment rules and an early harvest approach due to, inter alia, existing agreements and the nature of mega FTA.

Rachovitsa: International Law and the Global Public Interest: ICANN's Independent Objector as a Mechanism of Responsive Global Governance

Adamantia Rachovitsa (Univ. of Groningen - Law) has posted International Law and the Global Public Interest: ICANN's Independent Objector as a Mechanism of Responsive Global Governance (in Non-State Actors and Changing Relations in International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the informal, privately run body that manages the Domain Name System. ICANN recently expanded the top level of domain names by launching the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Programme and it has already introduced more than 1,000 gTLDs into the DNS (for example, ‘.CHURCH’, ‘.HEALTH’). This programme is expected to have a great impact on how Internet users search and experience the web in the future. The public(-like) nature of ICANN’s operation and the global ramifications of its decisions raise accountability and legitimacy concerns. In order to address some of these concerns, ICANN decided to protect certain interests and rights within the new gTLD programme by providing the opportunity for third parties to submit an objection to gTLD applications on specific grounds, including a limited public interest objection.

This paper concerns the limited public interest objection, according to which an applied-for gTLD string will not be registered if it is found to be contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order recognised under the principles of international law. The paper shows that the LPI objection is notable for three reasons. First, it aims to protect the interests of the global Internet community and not merely private interests; second, ICANN introduced an international legal standard to evaluate the applied-for strings; and third, a novel institution has been created to support the limited public interest objection: the Independent Objector acting solely in the best interests of the general public. Interestingly, Professor Alain Pellet served as the Independent Objector from 2012 to 2014.

The paper argues that the Independent Objector is a novel mechanism with the potential to enhance ICANN’s responsiveness to the global public interest. Although international lawyers have now started to pay attention to Internet governance bodies when discussing global governance, ICANN is very often excluded from these discussions due to its complexity and specificity. The discussion draws insights on the feasibility and desirability of the objection and the Independent Objector as means to remedy a gap in global governance. The analysis critically assesses how the Independent Objector has developed the limited public interest objection and evaluates the potential and limitations of international law for articulating and protecting the public interest at a global level. The paper concludes by making a series of recommendations with a view to improving the future implementation of this mechanism.

Stoyanova: Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered

Vladislava Stoyanova (Lund Univ. - Law) has published Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered: Conceptual Limits and States' Positive Obligations in European Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:

By reconsidering the definitions of human trafficking, slavery, servitude and forced labour, Vladislava Stoyanova demonstrates how, in embracing the human trafficking framework, the international community has sidelined the human rights law commitments against slavery, servitude and forced labour that in many respects provide better protection for abused migrants. Stoyanova proposes two corrective steps to this development: placing a renewed emphasis on determining the definitional scope of slavery, servitude or forced labour, and gaining a clearer understanding of states' positive human rights obligations. This book compares anti-trafficking and human rights frameworks side-by-side and focuses its analysis on the Council of Europe's Trafficking Convention and Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

New Issue: International Community Law Review

The latest issue of the International Community Law Review (Vol. 19, no. 1, 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Custom
• Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, Introductory Note: Beyond the Identification of International Customary Rules
• Noora Arajärvi, The Requisite Rigour in the Identification of Customary International Law
• Khagani Guliyev, Local Custom in International Law
• Sufyan Droubi, The Role of the United Nations in the Formation of Customary International Law in the Field of Human Rights
• Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli, The Possibilities and Legitimacy of Non-State Participation in the Formation of Customary Law
• Panos Merkouris, Interpreting the Customary Rules on Interpretation
• Michael Wood, Concluding Observations

Call for Abstracts: Public Law and the New Populism

The International Journal of Constitutional Law has issued a call for abstracts for a workshop on "Public Law and the New Populism," to take place September 15, 2017, at New York University School of Law. Here's the call:

Call for abstracts: Public Law and the New Populism

The International Journal of Constitutional Law (I-CON) is pleased to announce a call for abstracts for a workshop on "Public Law and the New Populism" to take place at NYU School of Law on September 15, 2017. The workshop will be co-hosted by the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice at NYU.

The focus of the workshop will be on the relationship between the current populist turn in national and international politics, on the one hand, and legal norms and institutions on the other. The aim is to bring together constitutional, international and public law scholars to investigate some of the distinctively legal dimensions of the populist wave sweeping the world's democracies. Each paper will be presented and discussed by an assigned commentator and other participants. Following the workshop, there may be an opportunity for a subset of the papers to be submitted to the I-CON journal as a proposed symposium issue.

Abstracts of between 250 and 750 words should be submitted on or before March 31, 2017, by email to Daniel Francis (daniel.francis@law.nyu.edu), with "Populism Workshop Submission" in the subject line. Final papers will be due by August 15, 2017. We hope to attract a genuinely diverse group of scholars in all respects. We particularly welcome proposals which address one or more of the following questions:

• One phenomenon or several? What might be the shared or unifying dimensions, if any, of the challenges presented to constitutional and public law and institutions by the recent populist turn across the US, Europe, and parts of Asia? Are there common problems and questions across jurisdictions or are these different and distinct phenomena? Are they similar or different to those raised by earlier populist movements in Latin America and elsewhere?
• Which elements of the constitutional order are under strain? Populist movements and populist leaders can present new challenges for the norms and institutions of public law: which aspects or elements of the constitutional and legal order will face the greatest strain in this new chapter of political history?
• Public law as a cause? Does the rise of populism reflect a backlash against a systematic neglect of non-elite interests in or from constitutional and international law processes? Have aspects of public law or its application played a role in bringing about this rise?
• Public law's response. Does (or should) the substance or application of public law -- including its norms and its institutions -- adapt in any ways to accommodate the phenomenon of populist politics? Can (or should) public law become a point of resistance during periods of populist politics? What are the implications of the populist turn for courts and the judiciary?
• What about international and transnational public law? Can (or have) international or transnational legal norms and institutions responded in adequate ways to the strongly nationalist dimension of the populist turn? Do international legal norms and institutions have a legitimate role to play in shaping, constraining, or reinforcing domestic political processes at such times? More generally, what are the implications of the populist turn for law and legal institutions beyond the nation-state?

Boisson de Chazournes: Interactions between Regional and Universal Organizations: A Legal Perspective

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (Univ. of Geneva - Law) has published Interactions between Regional and Universal Organizations: A Legal Perspective (Brill | Nijhoff 2017). Here's the abstract:

Cooperation through international organizations is fundamental to the international legal order. International organizations are nowadays ubiquitous and come in many different manifestations, each allowing for different levels of international cooperation. The profile of regional and universal organizations may vary greatly from one organization to another. At the same time, they do not live apart and this has led to the creation of a complex network of relationships. These relationships have seldom been the object of scholarship, and this book seeks to address that gap. In general, the relationships between international organizations can give rise to such issues as the conditions placed upon one organization by another, demarcations of competence, membership of other organizations, and various forms of collaboration involving the conclusion of agreements between organizations. Optimal coexistence, cooperation and coherence all play a role in optimizing the relations between international organizations. The volume concludes by analysing current challenges, including those of legal identity, responsibility and accountability, as well as making proposals for reform, such as through the development of a common law between organizations.

Baltag: ICSID Convention After 50 Years: Unsettled Issues

Crina Baltag has published ICSID Convention After 50 Years: Unsettled Issues (Wolters Kluwer 2017). Contents include:

• Crina Baltag, The ICSID Convention: A Successful Story – The Origins and History of the ICSID
• Horia Ciurtin, Paradoxes of (Sovereign) Consent: On the Uses and Abuses of a Notion in International Investment Law
• Roberto Castro de Figueiredo, The Notion of Investment and Economic Development under the ICSID Convention
• Matei Purice, Natural Persons as Claimants under the ICSID Convention
• Chester Brown & Ashique Rahman, Juridical Persons and the Requirements of the ICSID Convention
• Albert Badia, Attribution of Conducts of State-Owned Enterprises Based on Control by the State
• Alfred Siwy, Contract Claims and Treaty Claims
• Hanno Wehland, Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Proceedings under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Additional Facility Rules
• Michele Potestà, Preliminary Objections to Dismiss Claims that are Manifestly without Legal Merit under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules
• Monique Sasson, The Applicable Law and the ICSID Convention
• Sam Luttrell, Bias Challenges in ICSID Arbitration: Unsettled Issues
• Alejandro López Ortiz, Patricia Ugalde Revilla & Christopher Chinn, The Role of National Courts in ICSID Arbitration
• Lucas Bento, Mapping the Genetic Code of Provisional Measures: Characteristics and Recent Developments
• Stefan Dudas, Treaty Counterclaims under the ICSID Convention
• Markus Burgstaller, Recognition and Enforcement of ICSID Awards: The ICSID Convention and the European Union
• Silvia M. Marchili & Sara McBrearty, Annulment of ICSID Awards: Recent Trends
• Matthew Hodgson & Elizabeth Evans, Allocation of Costs in ICSID Arbitrations
• Romesh Weeramantry, Treaty Interpretation, the ICSID Convention and Investment Treaties
• Modern Authoritarian Regimes and the Denunciation of the ICSID Convention Vanessa A. Giraud Martinelli
• Daniel de Andrade Levy, The ICSID Convention and Non-Contracting States: The Brazilian Position Metaphor
• Dany Khayat & William Ahern, Enhancing the Appeal of Conciliation under the ICSID Convention
• Daniel Kalderimis, The Future of the ICSID Convention: Bigger, Better, Faster?

Schabas & Murphy: Research Handbook on International Courts and Tribunals

William A. Schabas (Middlesex Univ. - Law; Leiden Univ. - Law) & Shannonbrooke Murphy (Middlesex Univ. - Law) have published Research Handbook on International Courts and Tribunals (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017). Contents include:

• William A Schabas, Introduction
• Mónica Pinto, The Peace and Security Judgments: The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Regulation of the Use of Force
• Dinah Shelton, The Human Rights Judgments: The Jurisprudence of Regional Human Rights Tribunals – Lex Specialis or Lex Regionis?
• Nicolaos Strapatsas, The International Criminal Judgments: From Nuremberg to Tadić to Taylor
• Makane Moïses Mbengue, The Economic Judgments and Arbitral Awards: The Contribution of International Courts and Tribunals to the Development of International Economic Law
• Joseph Powderly & Jacob Chylinski, The Women Judges: Leading the Line in the Development of International Law
• Liliana Obregón, The Third World Judges: Neutrality, Bias or Activism at the Permanent Court of International Justice and International Court of Justice?
• Giulia Pecorella, The Giants of the International Judiciary: Towards a Humanization of the Law of Nations
• Yvonne Mcdermott Rees & Wedad Elmaalul, Legitimacy
• Luiz Eduardo Salles, Jurisdiction
• Richard Frimpong Oppong & Angela M Barreto, Enforcement
• Karin Oellers-Frahm, Proliferation
• Michelle Farrell, Distribution
• Tom Dannenbaum, Regulation of the International Bench
• Kate Gibson, John Jones, Michael G. Karnavas & Melinda Taylor, Regulation of the International Bar: The Particular Challenges for Defence Counsel at the International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
• Maria Varaki, Infrastructure
• Yaël Ronen, Functions and Access

New Issue: International Peacekeeping

The latest issue of International Peacekeeping (Vol. 24, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Naazneen H. Barma, Naomi Levy & Jessica Piombo, Disentangling aid dynamics in statebuilding and peacebuilding: a causal framework
• Beverley Milton-Edwards, The ‘Warriors Break’: Hamas and the Limits of Ceasefire Beyond Tactical Pause
• Nina Wilén & Lindy Heinecken, Peacekeeping deployment abroad and the self-perceptions of the effect on career advancement, status and reintegration
• Stephanie Perazzone, Reintegrating former fighters in the Congo: ambitious objectives, limited results
• Debora Valentina Malito, Neutral in favour of whom? The UN intervention in Somalia and the Somaliland peace process
• Vladimir Kmec, The establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission: reflecting power shifts in the United Nations
• Simone Datzberger, Peacebuilding through non-formal education programmes: a case study from Karamoja, Uganda

Capone: Reparations for Child Victims of Armed Conflict

Francesca Capone has published Reparations for Child Victims of Armed Conflict: State of the Field and Current Challenges (Intersentia 2017). Here's the abstract:

This book offers an analysis of the existing normative framework regulating the right to reparation for child victims of armed conflict. The study questions whether the current framework is sufficiently developed to provide child victims with adequate, effective and prompt reparations; furthermore it presents and critically assesses the judicial and non-judicial mechanisms in place as well as the reparations awarded and implemented so far at the international and regional level.

The research stems from the need to fill a gap in the current literature on transitional justice, in particular on the right to reparation. Even though reparations are well-established legal measures in several domestic judicial systems all over the world, in transitional periods reparations are not just a means to redress the harm suffered by the victims of wrongful acts, but they also seek to contribute to the reconstitution or the constitution of a new political community in the aftermath of an armed conflict. The overview of the relevant cases and materials provided in this book helps paving the way for reparations that are effective, adequate, prompt, and in line with the international standards set forth by the CRC and other instruments. This book ultimately strives to highlight the shortcomings of the existing mechanisms and it points out the main issues that need to be improved and/or overcome in pursuance of child victims’ redress.

New Issue: International Journal of Human Rights

The latest issue of the International Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 21, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Charles Veigel, Olga Koshevaliska Gurkova, Borka Tushevska & Ana Nikodinovska Krstevska, The ‘Gazi Baba’ Reception Centre for Foreigners in Macedonia: migrants caught at the crossroad between hypocrisy and complying with the rule of law
• Koen Lemmens, The dark side of ‘Zwarte Piet’: A misunderstood tradition or racism in disguise? A legal analysis
• Tine Destrooper & Pascal Sundi Mbambi, A praxis-based understanding of new duty bearers examining contextual realities in the DRC
• Clare Farmer, The disparity between human rights policy and parliamentary practice in Australia: A Victorian case study
• Tim Hammond & Adrienne Carmack, Long-term adverse outcomes from neonatal circumcision reported in a survey of 1,008 men: an overview of health and human rights implications

New Volume: Austrian Review of International and European Law

The latest volume of the Austrian Review of International and European Law (Vol. 19, 2014) is out. Contents include:

• Cyprus 1963/1964 – 1974 – 2004 – 2014: What Comes in Fours?
• Markus P. Beham, Preface: Cyprus 1963/1964 – 1974 – 2004 – 2014: What Comes in Fours?
• Aristoteles Constantinides, 1974-2014: 40 Years of a Divided Cyprus
• Ioannis Zelepos, The Historical Background of the Cyprus Problem – Just a Conflict of Ethnic Nationalism?
• Aristoteles Constantinides, The Cyprus Problem in the United Nations Security Council
• Helmut Tichy, Cyprus: A Situation of Serious Concern from the Rule of Law Perspective
• Christina Binder, Cyprus Through the Lens of the European Court of Human Rights or The European Court of Human Rights and Public International Law
• Nikolas Kyriakou, The Question of Missing Persons in Cyprus
• Markus P. Beham, Cyprus Through the Lens of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: ‘The Victim of an Outcome in Which They Have no Fault’
• Maria Hadjipavlou, Cypriot Citizens’ Peace Building Efforts Toward Reconciliation
• Irene Etzersdorfer, Conceptual Thoughts on the Linkage of ‘Ethnos’ and ‘Politics’ – Applied to the Emergence of the Cyprus Conflict
• Adamantios Theodor Skordos, Ethno-Political Violence in Southeast Europe – The Cyprus Case
• Karl Müller, New Chances Amidst Old Challenges
• Marios Ieronymides, Closing Words

Discussion: The Future of International Organization

This Friday, March 10, 2017, the American Branch of the International Law Association (United Nations Law Committee), the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (International Law Committee and United Nations Committee), the American Society of International Law (International Organizations Interest Group), the Fletcher Club of New York, and Oxford University Press are sponsoring a discussion on "The Future of International Organization," in New York City. Panelists include Mona Khalil (Independent Diplomat), Anjali Dayal (Fordham Univ.), Thomas G. Weiss (CUNY Graduate Center), and Ian Hurd (Northwestern Univ.), Ian Johnstone (Tufts Univ.), and me (the three co-editors of The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations). The program (with a registration link) is here. My particular thanks to Christiane Ahlborn and Bart Smit Duijzentkunst, the co-chairs of the UN Law Committeee of the ABILA, for organizing the discussion. Here's the idea:

Virtually every important question of public policy today involves an international organization. From security to trade to intellectual property to health policy and beyond, governments interact with international organizations in almost everything they do. Yet after decades of progressive institutionalization, the tide seems to be turning. In Africa, states are withdrawing from the International Criminal Court. In Europe, an “ever closer Union” seems a distant ideal. And the new leadership in the United States has signalled deep scepticism about the value of all international organizations. Is this the beginning of the end of international organization? What role will international institutions play in the changing geopolitical landscape of the 21st century? Please join us for a discussion with the co-editors and contributors to The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations to explore these and other pressing questions on the future of international organization.

McCrudden: Is the Principal Function of International Human Rights Law to Address the Pathologies of International Law?

Christopher McCrudden (Queen's Univ. Belfast - Law) has posted Is the Principal Function of International Human Rights Law to Address the Pathologies of International Law? A Comment on Patrick Macklem's The Sovereignty of Human Rights (University of Toronto Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

I aim to provide a critique of Patrick Macklem’s thesis in The Sovereignty of Human Rights that the function of human rights in international law should be seen ‘in terms of their capacity to monitor the structure and operation of the international legal order . . . requir[ing] the international legal order to attend to pathologies of its own making.’ I suggest an alternative account, that seems to me to be more consistent with much of the practice that he describes but rearranges it to provide a more convincing narrative. The function of human rights in international law does have the function that Macklem attributes to it, among others, but to claim that this is the function of international human rights law is to underestimate the complexity of human rights as well as their true significance (at least in my view). An analysis of international human rights law must take this complexity into account if a coherent and convincing explanation of the normativity of international human rights law is to stand any chance of being identified.

New Volume: Annuaire français de droit international

The latest volume of the Annuaire français de droit international (Vol. 61, 2015) is out. Contents include:

• État, Condition et Statut – Territoire
• Giovanni Distefano & Aymeric Hêche, L'organe de facto dans la responsabilité internationale : Curia, quo vadis ?
• Bjorn Kunoy, Le Tracé d'une frontière dans la zone située au-delà de 200 miles marins en l'absence de recommandations de la Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental
• Questions Militaires et Stratégiques
• Genevieve Bastid-Burdeau, La mer de Chine méridionale
• Sonia Drobysz, L'accord sur le Nucléaire iranien du 14 juillet 2015, solution négociée pur un retour au régime multilatéral de non-prolifération
• Alexandros Kolliopoulos, La destruction ciblée des monuments et des sites archéologiques en marge d'un conflit armé et la dimension culturelle de la paix internationale
• Raphael Van Steenberghe, Les interventions militaires étrangères contre le terrorisme international. Première partie : fondements juridiques (jus ad bellum)
• Contentieux International Général
• Andrea Hamann, CIJ, Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Croatie c. Serbie) arrêt, 3 février 2015
• Geraldine Giraudeau, À propos de l'affaire des Questions concernant la saisie et la détention de certains documents det données (Timore-Leste c. Australie) : quand la Cour internationale de Justice protège les droits d'un Etat partie a une autre instance
• Isabelle Moulier, L'affaire de l'Arctic Sunrise (Pays-Bas c. Russie) devant le Tribunal international du droit de la mer et la Cour permanente d'arbitrage
• Jean Louis Iten, La sentence arbitrale sur la compétence et la recevabilité du 29 octobre 2015 dans l'Arbitrage entre la Republique des Philippines c. Republique populaire de Chine devant la Cour permanente d'arbitrage
• O.N.U. et Organisations Internationales
• Émile-Derlin Kemfouet, Notes cursives sur la Cour de justice de l'Afrique de l'Est
• Anne-Thida Norodom & Philippe Lagrange, Travaux de la Commission du droit international et de la Sixième commission
• Lucie Delabie, Les conclusions de la Commission du droit international au suject de L'obligation d'extrader ou de poursuivre (aut dedere aut judicare) : un « rapport final » aux finalités obscures
• Pierre Bodeau-Livinec & Anne-Marie Thévenot-Werner, Activité et jurisprudence des tribunaux administratifs des Nations Unies
• David Ruzié, Jurisprudence du Tribunal administratif de l’OIT
• Ségolène Barbou des Places, avec Fancesco Martucci & Valérie Michel, Droit de l'Union europeenne et droit international

Chilton & Posner: Why Countries Sign Bilateral Labor Agreements

Adam S. Chilton (Univ. of Chicago - Law) & Eric A. Posner (Univ. of Chicago - Law) have posted Why Countries Sign Bilateral Labor Agreements. Here's the abstract:

Countries have entered several hundred bilateral labor agreements (BLAs), which control the conditions under which source countries send migrant workers to host countries. Using an original data set of 582 BLAs extending from 1945 to 2015, we conduct the first statistical examination of these agreements. We find that the standard explanation for BLAs—that they are entered into by countries with large differences in wealth and political regimes—is true for host countries are Middle Eastern, but this pattern reverses for other countries that have formed BLAs. We also find that countries that enter BLAs experience greater migration flows, though we are not able to verify that the BLAs cause these increases.

Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Lecture Series on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Global Commons and Global Public Goods

Here's the schedule for the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies's spring lecture series on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Global Commons and Global Public Goods:

• March 13, 2017: Tine De Moor (Univ. of Utrecht), From Local to Global: A History of the Commons
• March 29, 2017: Pierre Sauvêtre (Sophiapol, Paris X), Commons and the State: Je t’aime… Moi non plus?
• April 18, 2017: Neil Walker (Univ. of Edinburgh), Francqui Lecture, The Rudiments of Political Community: European Public Goods and the European Public Good
• May 2, 2017: Jutta Brunnée (Univ. of Toronto), Global Commons and International Law: Common Areas, Common Heritage, Common Concern or Something More?
• May 4, 2017: Ugo Mattei (Univ. of California Hastings College of the Law), The Ecology of International Law: Towards an International Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community?
• May 8, 2017: Julian Culp (Goethe Univ., Frankfurt), Education as a Global Public Good: What Difference Does It Make?
• May 15, 2017: Thomas Bernauer (ETH Zurich), Climate Policies and Regulation as Global Public Goods: Does Effectiveness Trump Legitimacy?
• May 24, 2017: Jan Aart Scholte (Univ. of Gothenburg), Global Commons and Global Public Goods: Two Models for Global Democracy

ASIL: 100 Days - A Live Online Briefing Series - U.S. Participation in Global Trade Agreements

As noted previously, the American Society of International Law is sponsoring "100 Days - A Live Online Briefing Series." The third session - on "U.S. Participation in Global Trade Agreements" - is scheduled for Wednesday, March 15, 2017. Here's the idea:

Modern nations have long relied on trading relationships to sustain and grow their economies, and globalization has intensified their interdependence. Although trade agreements and regulations have often been a source of domestic controversy, they have seldom been as hotly debated as they were during the 2016 election. Since taking office, the Trump administration has announced plans to withdraw from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has signaled its intention to withdraw from or renegotiate a number of the trade agreements in which the United States currently participates, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

This live online briefing, the third in the Society's series on "International Law and the Trump Administration," will feature former senior U.S. officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations who were responsible for representing the U.S. Government in its trade negotiations around the world and developing and implementing U.S. trade policy. They will discuss the role that international law plays in global trade agreements and disputes; the institutions that address those disputes; what authority the President has, acting on his own, to modify or withdraw from those agreements; criticisms and proposed reforms of the current international trade system; and the possible paths forward for pursuing the United States' economic interests abroad in the Trump Administration.

Di Gregorio & Angeli: The Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union

A. Di Gregorio & A. Angeli have published The Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union: Moving toward a Greater Understanding (Eleven International Publishing 2017). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This volume analyzes the evolution of geo-political and economic integration in the Eurasian area. The Eurasian integration is a growing phenomenon and the largest scale analysis proves necessary to avoid simplistic judgments based only on the geo-political approach. The editors of this publication present different profiles of integration, such as the geo-political and constitutional aspect, the relations with the European Union, migration issues, energy flows, the compatibility between the Eurasian and the WTO law, and the comparison with the European integration model. The book presents a wide range of viewpoints through essays of specialists from Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, Italy, France.

Call for Papers: The Other Globalisers: How the Socialist and the Non-Aligned World Shaped the Rise of Post-War Economic Globalisation

The 1989 after 1989: Rethinking the Fall of State Socialism in Global Perspective research project at the University of Exeter has issued a call for papers for a conference on "The Other Globalisers: How the Socialist and the Non-Aligned World Shaped the Rise of Post-War Economic Globalisation," to take place July 6-7, 2017. Here's the call:

The Other Globalisers: How the Socialist and the Non-Aligned World Shaped the Rise of Post-War Economic Globalisation, 6-7 July 2017

Location: University of Exeter, UK

Join the 1989 after 1989 research team for our conference on the “Other Globalisers” – how the socialist and the non-aligned world shaped the rise of post-war economic globalisation. Based at Exeter, this conference is the second in a series of events exploring how processes and practices that emerged from the socialist world shaped the re-globalised world of our times.

CALL FOR PAPERS

In the wake of the Second World War, the world economy began to ‘reglobalise’ – following the disintegrative processes of the interwar period. This story has most often been told as the final triumph of a neoliberal international order led by the West. Recent research, however, suggests that the creation of our modern interconnected world was not driven solely by the forces of Western capitalism, nor was it the only model of global economic interdependence that arose in the second half of the twentieth century. This conference aims to rethink the histories of postwar globalisation by focusing on the socialist and non-aligned world, whose roles in the rise of an economically interconnected world have received substantially less attention.

This conference aspires to address a wide variety of processes, practices and projects – such as efforts to create alternative systems of international trade, new business practices, through to theoretical conceptualisations of economic interconnectedness – and examine a broad range of actors, such as e.g. governments, experts, international institutions, and business ventures. It will also explore whether such initiatives were alternative at all: as recent research has suggested, actors from these worlds could be contributors to the emerging neoliberal consensus, as well as to other forms of regional economy and global trade that survive to this day. We also hope to encourage an interdisciplinary dialogue between scholars using different approaches to global interconnectedness, and/or working on a variety of regions (e.g. Latin America, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union).

Main questions and themes:

• theories and models of global economic connectedness: how did actors from the socialist and non-aligned worlds conceptualise e.g. the world economy, global trade;
• the role of decolonisation, and anti-imperial/revolutionary conflict as a driver of globalisation;
• the role of socialist and non-aligned actors at international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations (and associated organs/initiatives/networks such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the New International Economic Order, or the Group of 77 developing countries);
• the role of the development paradigm;
• cultural approaches to ‘socialist globalisation’, such as the relationship between socialist and non-aligned states’ promotion of economic interconnectedness and their political-cultural values such as solidarity and fraternity;
• the role of the socialist and non-aligned worlds in creating new forms of trade and markets;
• the role of socialist and non-aligned involvement in specific sectors and markets, e.g. oil, textiles, coffee, construction, etc.;
• the role of the socialist world in so-called ‘deviant globalisations’, such as in arms sales, drug trafficking and counterfeiting;
• the role of socialist and Third World banks, financial innovations, new currencies, export credits, and indebtedness;
• relations/links/influences across economic systems: e.g. collaboration across blocs, collaborations between the non-socialist Third World and socialist Second/Third World, and the impact of alternative economic processes on Western-led globalisation;
• internal responses and adjustments to globalising forces within the socialist and non-aligned world;
• the role of globalising economic processes on the survival and collapse of socialist systems across the world;
• the ongoing histories of these contributions and alternatives in the post-Cold War world.

Abstracts of 300-500 words, together with an accompanying short CV should be submitted to Natalie Taylor (N.H.Taylor@exeter.ac.uk) by 18 March 2017.

The selected participants will be notified by the end of March 2017.

Funding opportunities for travel and accommodation are available, but we ask that potential contributors also explore funding opportunities at their home institutions.

This event is kindly supported by Exeter University’s Leverhulme Trust-funded project 1989 after 1989: Rethinking the Fall of State Socialism in Global Perspective.

Call for Papers: AfSIL 6th Annual Conference

The African Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for its sixth annual conference, October 27-28, 2017, in Dar es Salaam. The theme is: "International Law and Natural Resources in Africa." The call is here.

Call for Papers: Intersectionality in Critical Theories of International Law

The American Society of International Law’s International Legal Theory Interest Group, in collaboration with the Quebec Society of International Law, has issued a call for papers for a conference on "Intersectionality in Critical Theories of International Law," to be held April 11, 2017, at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Here's the call:

Call for Papers:

“Intersectionality in Critical Theories of International Law”

The American Society of International Law’s International Legal Theory Interest Group (ILTIG), in collaboration with the Quebec Society of International Law (SQDI), invites academics and graduate students to submit proposals for a conference on “Intersectionality in Critical Theories of International Law.” The conference will be held parallel to the 111th ASIL Annual Meeting, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, April 11, 2017, from 1 pm to 5 pm at Georgetown University.

The purpose of this conference is to explore parallels between intersectionality theory, which examines contexts where individuals suffer oppression based on overlapping grounds (e.g., gender, race, class), and critical legal theories, which seek to deconstruct the patterns of power relations embedded in legal structures.

Intersectionality has attracted considerable attention in the social sciences. It has also become a topic of interest in the domestic legal sphere, beginning with Kimberlé W. Crenshaw’s seminal article, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Crenshaw demonstrated that women of color suffer oppression based on the combination of their gender and their race. Accordingly, the injuries they suffered were not captured adequately by either the gender anti-discrimination movement (which focused on white women’s concerns) or to the race anti-discrimination movement (which catered to the concerns of men of color).

Numerous legal scholars have examined intersections between oppressions related to gender and race, but other intersections, such as those involving class/poverty, age, ability, sexuality, and culture, have received less scrutiny. This is especially true for legal scholarship on international law. Yet, numerous strands of critical theory, such as Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and Marxism, offer fertile ground for further reflection on the possibilities (and limits) of international law as a possible factor in exacerbating or mitigating the intersectionality of oppressions.

The conference will explore links between intersectionality and critical theories of international law in the context of two specific legal fields: international human rights law and international trade law. Examples of questions to be addressed include the following:

• How do International Human Rights Law and International Trade Law generate or on the contrary alleviate intersectionalized oppressions?
• What categories of intersectionalized oppression do International Human Rights and International Trade Law obscure?
• What are the limits for the inclusion of intersectionality within the International Human Rights Law and International Trade Law regimes?
• How can International Human Rights Law and International Trade Law operationalize intersectionality outside of international tribunals?
• How can International Human Rights Law and International Trade Law embrace intersectionality without leading to essentialism, thus in a manner that can be operationalized coherently in the context of an international tribunal?

Proposals of no more than 500 words should be sent to sabrina.tremblay-huet@usherbrooke.ca before March 17th, 2017. The authors of the selected proposals will be notified by March 24th, 2017. Proposals from emerging scholars and graduate students are highly encouraged. A total of eight proposals will be selected, in order to constitute two panels on the selected themes.

Please note that no funding is available to cover transportation and accommodation for participants. Attendance at the conference is, however, free of charge.

Kammerhofer: Taking the Rules of Interpretation Seriously, But Not Literally? A Theoretical Reconstruction of Orthodox Dogma

Jörg Kammerhofer (Universität Freiburg - Law) has posted Taking the Rules of Interpretation Seriously, But Not Literally? A Theoretical Reconstruction of Orthodox Dogma (Nordic Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

For international lawyers, the rules of treaty interpretation in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention are 'the only game in town'. The Vienna Convention rules have had the whip-hand in international legal scholarship and practice for several decades now, but is this almost imperiously held belief justified? Is it even relevant whether that is so, given their overwhelming practical importance? Behind the (contentious) claim that these rules are always binding law lies, however, a theoretically much more interesting, yet fundamentally unsustainable second argument.

It is that this set of norms somehow displace the process of ascertaining the meaning-content of written law, the legal epistemic process. The rules of interpretation are seen as regulating the legal process of the applicative construction of meaning by the organs of international law. It is, in the last instance, doctrine's attempt to control, via interpretation norms, how treaties are construed by tribunals.

The present article is a critique, on the basis of the Pure Theory of Law, of this orthodox international-legal conception of interpretation. There are severe limitations to what interpretation can do as a matter of legal theory. Given these limits, the article then proceeds to reconstruct the possible meanings and uses of the Vienna Convention rules.

Turner: Plea Bargaining and International Criminal Justice

Jenia Iontcheva Turner (Southern Methodist Univ. - Law) has posted Plea Bargaining and International Criminal Justice (University of the Pacific Law Review, Vol. 48, p. 219, 2017). Here's the abstract:

Over the last two decades, plea bargaining has spread beyond the countries where it originated — the United States and other common law jurisdictions — and has become a global phenomenon. Plea bargaining is spreading rapidly to civil law countries that previously viewed the practice with skepticism. And it has now arrived at international criminal courts.

While domestic plea bargaining is often limited to non-violent crimes, the international courts allow sentence negotiations for even the most heinous offenses, including genocide and crimes against humanity. Its use remains highly controversial, and debates about plea bargaining in international courts continue in court opinions and academic commentary. Is it appropriate to offer sentencing concessions to a defendant who pleads guilty to a heinous crime involving thousands of victims? How can the avoidance of a public trial be reconciled with some of the professed goals of international criminal law, including the goal of creating a more accurate historical record of the atrocities and that of providing victims with a voice in the process? Conversely, given the very limited resources and enforcement powers of international criminal courts, could these courts achieve any of their goals effectively without the use of plea bargaining?

The controversies surrounding plea bargaining at the international level are based in part on the unique features of international criminal justice, especially the horrific nature of the crimes prosecuted and the emphasis on uncovering the truth about these crimes. But the resistance to plea bargaining also stems from the fusion of inquisitorial and adversarial approaches at the international courts. The inquisitorial tradition of full and independent judicial inquiry into the facts of the case, which has influenced the procedures of international courts, helps explain why plea bargaining remains highly contested in that setting.

This article highlights the different approaches to plea bargaining in civil law/inquisitorial and common law/adversarial systems and how the blending of these traditions has influenced plea bargaining at the international criminal courts. It ends with an overview of the debates concerning plea bargaining in international criminal procedure and some recommendations for making the practice more consistent with the goals of international criminal justice.