New Issue: Journal of Conflict Resolution

The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (Vol. 55, no. 6, December 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Jacob D. Kathman, Civil War Diffusion and Regional Motivations for Intervention
• Jeannie Annan, Christopher Blattman, Dyan Mazurana, & Khristopher Carlson, Civil War, Reintegration, and Gender in Northern Uganda
• Nils W. Metternich, Expecting Elections: Interventions, Ethnic Support, and the Duration of Civil Wars
• Thomas Zeitzoff, Using Social Media to Measure Conflict Dynamics: An Application to the 2008–2009 Gaza Conflict
• Andreas Flache & Michael W. Macy, Local Convergence and Global Diversity: From Interpersonal to Social Influence
• Dustin H. Tingley & Barbara F. Walter, Can Cheap Talk Deter?: An Experimental Analysis
• Emizet F. Kisangani & Jeffrey Pickering, Democratic Accountability and Diversionary Force: Regime Types and the Use of Benevolent and Hostile Military Force
• Srividya Jandhyala, Witold J. Henisz, & Edward D. Mansfield, Three Waves of BITs: The Global Diffusion of Foreign Investment Policy

New Issue: Asian Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Asian Journal of International Law (Vol. 2, no. 1, January 2012) is out. Contents include:

• Robert P. Barnidge, The 2008 United States-India Nuclear Co-operation Agreement and the Work of the International Law Commission on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts not Prohibited by International Law
• Prabhash Ranjan, Non-Precluded Measures in Indian International Investment Agreements and India's Regulatory Power as a Host Nation
• Thang Nguyen Dang, Fisheries Co-operation in the South China Sea and the (Ir)relevance of the Sovereignty Question
• Erik Franckx & Marco Benatar, Dots and Lines in the South China Sea: Insights from the Law of Map Evidence
• Mark D. Kielsgard, The Legality Principle in Sentencing at the ECCC: Making Up Law as It Goes Along?
• Andreas Schloenhardt, Fighting Organized Crime in the Asia Pacific Region: New Weapons, Lost Wars
• Dinara Ziganshina, International Water Law in Central Asia: The Nature of Substantive Norms and what Flows from It

New Issue: European Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law (Vol. 22, no. 4, November 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Editorial
• JHHW, Nino – In His Own Words; In this Issue; The Last Page and Roaming Charges
• Articles
• Jaye Ellis, General Principles and Comparative Law
• Thilo Rensmann, Munich Alumni and the Evolution of International Human Rights Law
• Anastasios Gourgourinis, General/Particular International Law and Primary/Secondary Rules: Unitary Terminology of a Fragmented System
• Daphné Richemond-Barak, Regulating War: A Taxonomy in Global Administrative Law
• Critical Review of International Jurisprudence
• Sonia Morano-Foadi & Stelios Andreadakis, The Convergence of the European Legal System in the Treatment of Third Country Nationals in Europe: The ECJ and ECtHR Jurisprudence
• Critical Review of International Governance
• Abigail C. Deshman, Horizontal Review between International Organizations: Why, How, and Who Cares about Corporate Regulatory Capture
• Roaming Charges Places of Worship: Piazza Duomo Milano
• EJIL: Debate!
• Roda Mushkat, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited
• Kevin Y. L. Tan, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited: A Reply to Roda Mushkat
• Roda Mushkat, The Dynamics of International Legal Regime Formation: The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong Revisited: A Rejoinder to Kevin Tan
• Bas Schotel, Doing Justice to the Political. The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan: A Reply to Sarah Nouwen and Wouter Werner
• Sarah M. H. Nouwen & Wouter G. Werner Doing Justice to the Political: The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan: A Rejoinder to Bas Schotel
• Impressions
• Philip Allott, On First Understanding Plato’s Republic

Singh: Non-Proliferation Law & Countermeasures: Their Function and Role in Determining the Status of a Special Regime

Sahib Singh (Univ. of Vienna - Law; Univ. of Cambridge) has posted Non-Proliferation Law & Countermeasures: Their Function and Role in Determining the Status of a Special Regime (in Nonproliferation as a Special Regime, D. Joyner & M. Roscini eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This paper examines the rhetoric of fragmentation, specifically the nuanced notion of ‘special regimes’ (as opposed to self-contained), in the context of non-proliferation law and rules relating to countermeasures. The general question which is asked and answered is: what is the extent to which non-proliferation law, and the special obligations and institutional mechanisms created by the governing treaties, enables, limits or otherwise modifies the right to resort to countermeasures under general international law? An extension of the question that Rapporteur Arangio-Ruiz asked in the ILC in 1992, this piece reviews the large of non-proliferation rules to answer three sub-questions: (a) who has standing to take countermeasures in relation to non-proliferation obligations; (b) when can a state take recourse to countermeasures under general international law, given the existence and content of special non-proliferation rules and institutional mechanisms; and (c) what countermeasures may a state take, given the nature of the regime, its practicalities and the nature of some of its obligations.

The finding of this paper is that non-proliferation law possesses distinct legal characteristics and distinct legal rules both of which impact, varyingly, on the resort to countermeasures in this area of law. First, the paper critiques the ILC’s direct and overly simplistic importation of the notion of ‘interdependent obligations’ from its work on the law of treaties, to its work on state responsibility, and specifically Article 42(b)(ii) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. This has led to a conflated understanding of which non-proliferation obligations, upon breach, enable a decentralized, third-state party, response in the form of countermeasures. The paper concludes, that under a strict reading of doctrine, only a very few substantive non-proliferation obligations, and certainly not the majority let alone the procedural and peaceful use obligations, would qualify as interdependent obligations. Accordingly, whilst non-proliferation law is traditionally considered susceptible to decentralized responses (as ample practice demonstrates), this is not consistent with a reading of the law. Second, the paper applies the Air Services Arbitration test to whether the existence of extensive institutional frameworks should condition the resort to countermeasures. It concludes that in the case of the majority of non-proliferation treaties, such frameworks and not mandatory pre-requisites. It further identifies specific obligations contained in the CWC and CTBT that govern the taking of collective countermeasures in the general interest. Finally, this section identifies specific non-proliferation rules which limit the taking of countermeasures that emerge out of the WTO regime and UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010). Third, and finally, the paper concludes that what countermeasures may be taken may be curtailed by the nature of certain non-proliferation obligations, whilst the need to liberalize current international legal doctrine may emerge from the question of urgent countermeasures in the area of non-proliferation law.

In short, the paper concludes, that despite evidence of special characteristics and special rules governing countermeasures, non-proliferation law cannot be considered a special regime. The paper does however seek to provide a pragmatic view of the way in which countermeasures may be taken, in accordance with the law, in the diverse area of non-proliferation law.

Call for Submissions: Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law

The Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law is a newly established double-blind peer reviewed, open-access journal which aims to publish high-end legal scholarship. It has a broad focus on international and comparative law and a particular focus on publishing work that examines the intersection of different international, domestic and transnational legal regimes. The Journal aims to become a platform for constructive and critical dialogue between the well-established academics and practitioners on the one side and the younger generations on the other. It will have two substantive issues per year and a annual special issue, which will critically examine the decisions of the UK Supreme Court from the preceding judicial year. The CJICL is the only journal to produce a full issue review of the previous three terms of the work of the UK Supreme Court.

The journal has issued a call for submissions for its inaugural and posterior issues. Here's the call:

Call for Submissions for the Inaugural and Posterior Issues

The Editorial Board of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL), an open access, double-blind peer review journal based at the University of Cambridge, is pleased to announce the CJICL are now accepting submissions for both the inaugural and posterior issues.

The Board invites long articles, short articles, case notes and book review submissions that broadly engage with the themes of public and private international and comparative law, as well as EU and transnational law. The CJICL is particularly interested in work that examines the intersection of different legal regimes – domestic, regional, transnational, international – as well as cutting edge international legal scholarship.

All submissions will be double-blind peer reviewed before a final decision on publication is taken. All long articles and some short articles will be sent to our Academic Review Board, which consist of a distinguished international and comparative law scholars and practitioners. A full list can be viewed on our website www.cjicl.org.uk. All other articles, case notes and book reviews will be double-blind peer reviewed by our Editorial Board.

The closing date for submissions is the 1 February 2012. Successful authors will be notified in April 2012 as to whether they will be published in one of our two substantive issues for the year 2011-12. Manuscripts must be submitted via our website – click on ‘Submissions’ at www.cjicl.org.uk - by the closing date. Please see below for further information.

In addition to a call for submissions for the Journal, the Editorial Board would like to invite authors to submit c. 1000 word commentaries for our new online blog (available at www.cjicl.org.uk), by e-mailing them to: blog@cjicl.org.uk with your name, institution and submission in a separate word (.doc) or richtext (.rtf) document.

Andrew Sanger and Rumiana Yotova

Editors in Chief of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law

Editors@cjicl.org.uk

Further Submission Information

The Journal accepts the following types of manuscript:

1. Long Articles between 6,000 and 10,000 words but not exceeding 12,000 words including footnotes;

2. Short Articles not exceeding 6,000 words including footnotes;

3. Case Notes including substantive analysis should be approximately 3000 words including footnotes (comparative methodologies, if applicable, are encouraged); and

4. Book Reviews not exceeding 2500 words including footnotes.

All copy must be submitted in Word (.doc) or Richtext (.rtf) format and must conform to our style guidelines, which are available on the submissions section of our website. The number of words in the text and (separately if possible) the footnotes should be stated.

Please ensure that your manuscript does not contain any reference to your personal or professional identity.

For up to date information, please see our website

2011/2012 Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures

On Tuesday, February 28, Wednesday, February 29, and Thursday, March 1, 2012, Yuval Shany, the Hersch Lauterpacht Chair in International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, will deliver the 2011/2012 Sir Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures at the University of Cambridge. The topic of the lectures is "Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Cases before International Courts and Tribunals."

Hilpold: Das Kosovo-Gutachten des IGH vom 22. Juli 2010

Peter Hilpold (Univ. of Innsbruck - Law) has published Das Kosovo-Gutachten des IGH vom 22. Juli 2010 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011). Contents include:

• Peter Hilpold, Das Kosovo-Gutachten vom 22. Juli 2010: historische, politische und rechtliche Voraussetzungen
• Christian Tomuschat, Die Anerkennung von Neustaaten – Die vorzeitige Anerkennung
• Peter Hilpold, Die Sezession im Völkerrecht – Erfordert das Kosovo-Gutachten des IGH eine Neubewertung dieses Instituts?
• Stefan Oeter, Sezession, territoriale Integrität und die Rolle des Sicherheitsrates
• Matthias Niedobitek, Die OSZE und der Kosovo
• Isabel Lirola Delgado, The European Union and Kosovo in the Light of the Territorial Issue
• Michael Bothe, Grenzziehung als Instrument der Friedenssicherung – Von Palästina zum Kosovo und zurück
• Andrea Gioia, Decisions of the UN Security Council of Indefinite Duration: How to Define the Limits of Their Validity
• Helmut Philipp Aust, The Kosovo Opinion and Issues of International Responsibility
• Andrea Gattini, “You Say You´ll Change the Constitution” – The ICJ and Non–state Entities in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion
• Anne Peters, Das Kosovo-Gutachten und globaler Konstitutionalismus
• Gerhard Hafner & Nadia Kalb, Struktur und Inhalt der Stellungnahmen von Österreichs im IGH-Gutachtenverfahren zu Kosovo

New Volume: British Yearbook of International Law

The latest volume of the British Yearbook of International Law (Volume 81, 2010) is out. Contents include:

• Hugh Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989 - PREFACE - Chapter I: Jurisdiction in Contentious Cases - Chapter II: Jurisdiction and Its Exercise in Advisory Proceedings: SUPPLEMENT, 2010: PARTS NINE AND TEN
• Douglas Guilfoyle, The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict
• Ilias Bantekas, The Emergence of the Intergovernmental Trust in International Law
• Ben Juratowitch, Diplomatic Protection of Shareholders

Graebner & Bennett: The Versailles Treaty and Its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision

Norman A. Graebner (Univ. of Richmond) & Edward M. Bennett (Washington State Univ.) have published The Versailles Treaty and Its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011). Here's the abstract:

This study, a realist interpretation of the long diplomatic record that produced the coming of World War II in 1939, is a critique of the Paris Peace Conference and reflects the judgment shared by many who left the Conference in 1919 in disgust amid predictions of future war. The critique is a rejection of the idea of collective security, which Woodrow Wilson and many others believed was a panacea, but which was also condemned as early as 1915. This book delivers a powerful lesson in treaty-making and rejects the supposition that treaties, once made, are unchangeable, whatever their faults.

New Issue: Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht

The latest issue of the Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (Vol. 71, no. 4, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Abhandlungen
• Paul Behrens, Assessment of International Criminal Evidence. The Case of the Unpredictable Génocidaire
• Matthias Klatt, Positive Obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights
• Sina van den Bogaert, Roma Segregation in Education. Direct or Indirect Discrimination?
• Henrik Wenander, Recognition of Foreign Administrative Decisions. Balancing International Cooperation, National Self-Determination, and Individual Rights
• Stellungnahmen und Berichte
• Carla M. Zoethout, The Dilemma of Constitutional Comparativism
• Martin Schaub, Zur völkerrechtlichen Zulässigkeit des amerikanischen Editionsbefehls an die UBS im Streit um die Kundendaten

Lavranos: Is an International Investor-to-State Arbitration System Under the Auspices of the ECJ Possible?

Nikos Lavranos (Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Netherlands) has posted Is an International Investor-to-State Arbitration System Under the Auspices of the ECJ Possible? Here's the abstract:

Almost two years into the Lisbon Treaty, it has by now become general knowledge that the EU has obtained explicit exclusive external competence in the area of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) (Article 207 (1) TFEU). This transfer of competence from the Member States to the EU has created a host of major problems and raised many complex legal, institutional, economic and political questions, which will keep many of us busy for a long time.

Suffice to mention the still unresolved faith of existing extra-EU and intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) of the Member States, the lack of definition of what FDI actually encompasses, and more generally, the lack of a clear delineation of the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States with regard to FDI. More fundamentally, it remains to be seen how the European Parliament (EP) is going to use its new co-legislative powers concerning FDI in order to introduce non-trade concerns into this policy field. This list could of course be extended much further, but this contribution will leave these issues aside. Instead, I will merely try to answer the simple but very relevant question of whether, and if so, to what extent an international investor-to-state arbitration system under the auspices of the ECJ is at all possible.

Since the Treaties do not contain an outright – positive or negative – answer, one must turn to the jurisprudence of the ECJ. So far, the ECJ has not explicitly and directly addressed this question either. However, the ECJ has in the past issued several related Opinions and rendered many relevant judgments, which – taken together – should provide for a sufficient basis in order to answer the question to an extent that goes beyond mere speculation.

In the first place, the ECJ has made its views known as to the conditions and limitations of establishing and using international arbitration dispute settlement systems for resolving disputes between EU Member States.

In the second place, and most recently in Opinion 1/09 , the ECJ has quite clearly explained the limits for establishing an international court system for resolving disputes between private parties.

Thus, whereas the ECJ has not yet directly addressed the for our purposes relevant configuration of investor-to-(Member)state dispute settlement system within the European legal order, the approaches taken so far by the ECJ concerning Member State-to-Member State dispute resolution and dispute resolution between private parties, provide clear indications of how the ECJ would determine the question of allowing an investor-to-state arbitration dispute settlement system within the European legal order.

In other words, by using the detour of relying in analogy on the existing ECJ jurisprudence, an attempt is made to extrapolate the position the ECJ is likely to take for the configuration of investor-to-state arbitration.

The starting point of the subsequent analysis will thus be Opinion 1/09, enriched by other relevant Opinions and judgments such as Opinion 1/91 and MOX plant . The working hypothesis for this contribution is that the EU is competent to conclude - together with the Member States - comprehensive FTAs that include investment chapters as well as stand-alone EU BITs as mixed agreements.

Furthermore, it is assumed that such FTAs and EU BITs will contain full-fledged international investor-to-state arbitration rules or systems that are comparable to what is currently the best practice of the Member States’ BITs.

The analysis will proceed by first shortly recalling the main reasons for including investor-to-state arbitration systems in practically all BITs. After having thus established the rationale and functioning of such systems in international (investment) law, the analysis will turn towards the situation within the EU, in particular as determined by the jurisprudence of the ECJ. Finally, some concluding remarks will wrap up this contribution.

Goodhart: The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: A History of the Early Years, 1974–1997

Charles Goodhart (LSE - Financial Markets Group Research Centre) has published The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: A History of the Early Years, 1974–1997 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011). Here's the abstract:

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) sets the guidelines for world-wide regulation of banks. It is the forum for agreeing international regulation on the conduct of banking. Based on special access to the archives of the BCBS and interviews with many of its key players, this book tells the story of the early years of the Committee from its foundation in 1974/5 right through until 1997 – the year that marks the watershed between the Basel I Accord on Capital Adequacy and the start of work on Basel II. In addition, the book covers the Concordat, the Market Risk Amendment, the Core Principles of Banking and all other facets of the work of the BCBS. While the book is primarily a record of the history of the BCBS, it also provides an assessment of its actions and efficacy. It is a major contribution to the historical record on banking supervision.

New Issue: Journal du Droit International

The latest issue of the Journal du Droit International ("Clunet") (Vol. 138, no. 4, Octobre-Novembre-Décembre 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Doctrine
• Eric Loquin, Retour dépassionné sur l’arrêt INSERM c/ Fondation Leeten F. Saugstad (Tribunal des conflits, 17 mai 2010)
• Thomas Schultz & David Holloway, Retour sur la comity (Première partie)
• Jonathan Mattou, Le Bribery Act ou les choix de la loi britannique en matière de lutte contre la corruption - Un danger pour les entreprises françaises ?
• Variétés
• David Ruzié, À propos de la notion d’expectative légitime des agents d’une organisation internationale
• Valérie Pironon, Dits et non-dits sur la méthode de la focalisation dans le contentieux - contractuel et délictuel - du commerce électronique

Conference: ASIL Annual Meeting 2012

The 106th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law will take place March 28-31, 2012, in Washington, DC. The theme is "Confronting Complexity." The program is not yet available, but online registration is now open. Here's the idea:

Contemporary reality is confoundingly complex: it is marked by rapidly evolving technologies, increasing global interconnectedness, rising population, and deepening understanding of science and the environment. New international actors; changes in social, economic, and political dynamics; a multipolar power structure; and novel security threats only add to the complexity. Amidst this confusion, international law can be a source of order and clarity. It can provide frameworks to peacefully resolve disputes, regulate relations between different actors, and clarify rights and obligations. It can foster technological development and facilitate exchanges of knowledge and goods. It is no surprise that managing global financial crises, protecting global commons, responding to conflicts spilling across borders, and guaranteeing public health and safety have all been added to international law’s purview. In our crowded, connected world, civil uprisings, financial collapses, natural and human-caused disasters are no longer domestic crises: they are global crises.

While international law has at times been quite creative in response to these problems, whether it is fully up to the task remains an open question. International law can actually exacerbate complexity with conflicting or unclear rules, uncertain enforcement, and overlapping and competing jurisdiction. International law must demonstrate the flexibility to embrace new issues, to look beyond the State, and to integrate new players (who may not follow its rules). Transparency, accountability, and participation must be guaranteed in new private regulatory regimes, shorn from State control. The instruments and processes of international law must provide means for scientific evidence to be sifted, understood, and translated into law. And yet, even as it adapts, international law must also remain a force for stability and predictability.

Which problems is international law particularly well-suited to solve? Which seem to defy its regulation? What tools does international law have to manage this complexity? Where are best practices emerging? What has our profession learned in the last half-century? Is law, with its emphasis on rules and stability, conceptually and functionally capable of responding to the challenges of complexity? If not, how should law react? What do experts from outside the legal profession, from technology, finance, counterinsurgency, climate science, and risk, believe law can add? During the 2012 ASIL Annual Meeting we will address these questions and discuss how international law responds to complexity.

New Issue: ASA Bulletin

The latest issue of the ASA Bulletin (Vol. 29, no. 4, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Nathalie Voser, Overview of the Most Important Changes in the Revised ICC Arbitration Rules
• Annex: Article Numbers of the 2012 ICC Rules as Compared to the Article Numbers of the 1998 ICC Rules
• Simon Gabriel, Dealing With “Challenged Documents”
• Walid Ben Hamida, L’arbitrage et le nouveau contexte politique en Tunisie

New Issue: Transnational Dispute Management

The latest issue of Transnational Dispute Management (2011, no. 5) is out. This is a special issue on "Resolving International Business Disputes by ADR in Asia." The table of contents is here.

Symposium: ANZSIL International Economic Law Interest Group

The Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law's International Economic Law Interest Group and the Sydney Centre for International Law will hold a research symposium on on March 2, 2012. (I previously noted the call for papers here.) The draft program is here.

New Issue: Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

The latest issue of the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (Vol. 29, no. 4, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• P. Gerber, A. Gargett, & M. Castan, Does the Right to Birth Registration Include a Right to a Birth Certificate?
• R. Kicker, M. Möstl, & E. Lantschner, Reforming the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms
• T. Soboka Bulto, Towards Rights-Duties Congruence: Extraterritorial Application of the Human Right to Water in the African Human Rights system

New Issue: Internationales Handelsrecht

The latest issue of Internationales Handelsrecht (2011, no. 6) is out. Contents include:

• Charlotte Wilhelm, Die Rechtsbehelfe des Käufers bei Nichterfüllung nach dem Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Verordnung über ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht (KOM (2011) 635 endg.)

New Issue: Revue belge de droit international

The latest issue of the Revue belge de droit international (Vol. 43, no. 2, 2010) is out. Contents include:

• Dossier spécial : Le panel d'inspection de la banque mondiale à l'âge de la maturité. Quelques éléments d'évaluation

• P. Klein, Introduction
• J. Spanoudis, L'accès des individus au panel d'inspection : faux semblant ou réalité ?
• G. Dusepulchre, Le panel d'inspection jouit-il de l'indépendance nécessaire pour contrôler les agissements de la Banque mondiale ?
• R. Gallert, L'accountability, un concept adapté aux organisations internationales ?
• Études
• M. Alie, Spécificité de la procédure devant la Cour pénale internationale : Analyses et réflexions relatives à la place préliminaire du procès verbal
• M. Flakowska, L'interaction entre la Cour pénale internationale et le Conseil de sécurité en matière d'agression à l'issue de la Conférence de révision du Statut de Rome
• A.C. Hatton, R. Ouellet, & L. Letourneau, Du rôle de la genèse dans l'exégèse : pour une interprétation historiquement éclairée de l'exception de moralité publique du GATT

Deeks: 'Unwilling or Unable': Toward an Normative Framework for Extra-Territorial Self-Defense

Ashley Deeks (Columbia Univ. - Law) has posted 'Unwilling or Unable': Toward an Normative Framework for Extra-Territorial Self-Defense (Virginia Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Non-state actors, including terrorist groups, regularly launch attacks against states, often from external bases. When a victim state seeks to respond with force to those attacks, it must decide whether to use force on the territory of another state with which it may not be in conflict. International law traditionally requires the victim state to assess whether the territorial state is "unwilling or unable" to suppress the threat itself. Only if the territorial state is unwilling or unable to do so may the victim state lawfully use force. Yet there has been virtually no discussion, either by states or scholars, of what that test requires. The test's lack of content undercuts its legitimacy and suggests that it is not currently imposing effective limits on the use of force by states at a time when trans-national armed violence is pervasive.

This Article provides the first sustained descriptive and normative analysis of the test. Descriptively, it explains how the "unwilling or unable" test arises in international law as part of a state's inquiry into whether it is necessary to use force in response to an armed attack. It identifies the test's deep roots in neutrality law, while simultaneously illustrating the lack of guidance about what inquiries a victim state must undertake when assessing whether another state is "unwilling or unable" to address a particular threat. Normatively, the Article plumbs two centuries of state practice to propose a core set of substantive and procedural factors that should inform the "unwilling or unable" inquiry. It then applies those factors to a real-world example – Colombia's use of force in Ecuador in 2008 against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – to explore how the use of these factors would affect the involved states' decision-making and the evaluation by other states of the action's legality. The Article argues that the use of these factors would improve the quality of state decision-making surrounding the use of force in important substantive and procedural ways.

Liste: Völkerrecht-Sprechen: Die Konstruktion demokratischer Völkerrechtspolitik in den USA und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Philip Liste has published Völkerrecht-Sprechen: Die Konstruktion demokratischer Völkerrechtspolitik in den USA und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Nomos 2012). Here's the abstract:

Wenn Demokratien in den Krieg ziehen, wissen Sie das Recht auf ihrer Seite. Gleiches gilt, wenn sie den Krieg verurteilen. Doch was ist, wenn Demokratien unterschiedliche Rechtspositionen zu ein und demselben Krieg beziehen?

Der Autor zeigt, wie sich die Positionen in den Zentren politischer Macht selbst in Fragen der völkerrechtlichen Haltung zu Ereignissen wie dem Irakkrieg nicht mehr isoliert von ihrer gesellschaftlichen Umwelt bestimmen lassen. Über das zunehmend auch in den öffentlichen Diskursen der Medien konstruierte Verhältnis von Politik, Recht und Demokratie werden Felder gesellschaftlichen Sinns erzeugt, die sich bei der Formulierung völkerrechtlicher Positionen nicht ignorieren lassen und durch Regierungen oft nicht ignoriert werden. Dennoch variieren die Muster der hergestellten Bezüge zwischen Völkerrecht und dem jeweiligen demokratischen Selbstverständnis ganz erheblich, wie die Arbeit in einem Vergleich deutscher und US-amerikanischer Diskurse verdeutlicht. Zu den contra-intuitiven Ergebnissen gehört die Einschätzung, dass die Deutschen als Demokraten womöglich die besseren Völkerrechtler sind, aber die Amerikaner als Völkerrechtler die besseren Demokraten.

Hestermeyer, et al.: Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum

Holger P. Hestermeyer (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law), Doris König (Bucerius Law School), Nele Matz-Lück (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law), Volker Röben (Swansea Univ. - Law), Anja Seibert-Fohr (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law), Peter-Tobias Stoll (Göttingen Univ. - Law), & Silja Vöneky (Univ. of Freiburg - Law) have published Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011). The table of contents is here.

Bechtel & Sattler: What is Litigation in the World Trade Organization Worth?

Michael M. Bechtel (ETH Zurich - Center for Comparative and International Studies) & Thomas Sattler (LSE - International Relations) have posted What is Litigation in the World Trade Organization Worth? Here's the abstract:

Conventional wisdom holds that the creation of international, court-like institutions helps countries to peacefully settle trade conflicts, thereby enhancing overall welfare. Others, however, point out that these institutions remain ultimately ineffective, because they merely reflect the distribution of power in the anarchic international system. We explore how litigation in the WTO affects bilateral trade between countries involved in a trade dispute. We find that sectoral exports from complainant countries to the defendant increase by about $9.5 billion in the three years after a panel ruling. However, countries that have proactively filed a complaint and carried the main costs of litigation do not systematically gain more than less active third parties that merely joined an existing WTO dispute and carried smaller litigation costs. We conclude that international judicial institutions create incentives for freeriding, but at the same time may lead to a less power-based distribution of the gains from trade.

New Volume: Indian Journal of International Economic Law

The latest volume of the Indian Journal of International Economic Law (Vol. 4, 2011) is out. Contents include:

• Fabio Leonardi, The Sky is Not the Limit: A Review of U.S. Space Transportation Law from a WTO Perspective
• Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, The Legality of Economic Sanctions under International Law and EU Law: The Case of Iran
• Francesco Seatzu, Towards a Mediterranean Development Bank?
• Amrita, Making WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Work for Developing Countries: Designing the Strategy of Public-Private Partnership
• R. Trequattrini, S. Manfredi & Dott. F. Nappo, The Administration of Big Companies in State of Insolvency: The Italian Framework
• Navajyoti Samanta, Did GATS Cause the Financial Crisis of 2007?
• Neeti Shikha, The Changing Trend of Schemes of Arrangement and Approaches towards its Efficacy