Meyer & Sitaraman: Trade and the Separation of Powers

Timothy Meyer (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) & Ganesh Sitaraman (Vanderbilt Univ. - Law) have posted Trade and the Separation of Powers (California Law Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

There are two paradigms through which to view trade law and policy within the American constitutional system. One paradigm sees trade law and policy as quintessentially about domestic economic policy. Institutionally, under the domestic economics paradigm, trade law falls within the province of Congress, which has legion Article I authorities over commercial matters. The second paradigm sees trade law as fundamentally about America’s relationship with foreign countries. Institutionally, under the foreign affairs paradigm, trade law is the province of the President, who speaks for the United States in foreign affairs. While both paradigms have operated throughout American history, the domestic economics paradigm dominated in the nineteenth century, and the foreign affairs paradigm from the mid-twentieth century.

Since the end of the Cold War, however, trade law and policy has become increasingly divisive and contentious. Trade law and policy entered a new era of liberalization, characterized by international organizations (like the WTO) and a shift to mini-lateral free trade agreements. By 2016, backlash was in full force, with candidates Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton all coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Since taking office, President Trump has instituted high tariffs on solar panels, threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, and sparked concern about a trade war with China.

This Article makes three contributions. First, we argue that the current discontent over trade is not just a matter of the distribution of economic gains and losses but a matter of the distribution of constitutional powers. We provide a thorough descriptive account of the two paradigms for trade within our constitutional system and show that trade has migrated from a domestic to a foreign affairs matter – and ultimately that it has becoming unhooked even from specific foreign affairs objectives. As trade drifted further away from the balance struck by our separation of powers and became increasingly rooted in the Presidency, agreements liberalizing trade rules became more viable – but at the cost of the political sustainability that comes with greater congressional involvement.

Second, we make a normative case for rebalancing trade within the constitutional structure. We argue that trade shares few similarities with other foreign affairs and national security areas in which the President is seen to have a functional advantage, and perhaps surprisingly given the conventional wisdom, that the parochial interests of Congress present strong benefits to trade policymaking that are widely undervalued.

Finally, we apply this rebalanced framework for trade law and policy to a variety of contemporary debates, including the role of fast track authority in negotiating and approving trade agreements, the President’s power to declare trade wars, the scope of the President’s authority to withdraw from trade agreements, the use of unorthodox international agreements in the commercial context, and the increasing conflict between trade agreements and state and local authority, which we term “trade federalism.”

Call for Papers: Contemporary Challenges to International Law and Policy on Sustainable Development, Energy, Climate Change, Environmental Protection, Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer

A call for papers has been issued for a session on “Contemporary Challenges to International Law and Policy on Sustainable Development, Energy, Climate Change, Environmental Protection, Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer,” organized by gLAWcal - Global Law Initiatives for Sustainable Development, the European Society of International Law Interest Group on International Environmental Law, and the American Society of International Law Interest Group on Intellectual Property Law on the occasion of the Conference for Young Lawyers (COFOLA) International, to be held at Masaryk University, Telč, Czech Republic, on April 19-21, 2018. The call is here.

New Issue: Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The latest issue of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (Vol. 51, no. 1, January 2018) is out. Contents include:

• Francesco Ducci, Cartel Criminalization in Europe: Addressing Deterrence and Institutional Challenges
• George K. Foster, Community Participation in Development
• Samuli Seppänen, Chinese Legal Development Assistance: Which Rule of Law? Whose Pragmatism?
• Barbara Stark, When Genealogy Matters: Intercountry Adoption, International Human Rights, and Global Neoliberalism

Satterthwaite & Zetes: Rendition in Extraordinary Times

Margaret L. Satterthwaite (New York Univ. - Law) & Alexandra Zetes have posted Rendition in Extraordinary Times (in Beyond Human Rights and the War on Terror, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The practice of rendition — the involuntary transfer of an individual across borders without recourse to extradition or deportation proceedings — is not new. Indeed, the practice of snatching a defendant for trial — “rendition to justice” — has been used by governments for more than a century. Although rendition has been controversial in human rights circles, it has been celebrated by many as crucial in the fight against impunity for grave crimes. Former U.S. President George W. Bush was criticized for the “novel” practice of “extraordinary rendition” — the transfer of suspects to locations known for the systematic use of torture, including secret CIA prisons (this set of practices is hereinafter referred to as the “Extraordinary Rendition Program”). U.S. officials at the time defended the practice, relying on justifications developed to support “rendition to justice” and arguing that the U.S. Extraordinary Rendition Program was legal. Despite these justifications, international human rights bodies and intergovernmental organizations including the Council of Europe, the European Union, and human rights bodies of the United Nations, determined that the extraordinary form of rendition was unlawful under human rights law.

Soon after former President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, he promised to end the most severe human rights violations carried out by the U.S. government in the name of fighting terrorism, including the use of torture and secret detention facilities. While this move was a positive signal that the United States planned to bring its practice into line with international norms, the Obama Administration in fact retained a number of problematic tools developed by previous Administrations. Although Obama signed executive orders ending the use of torture and secret detention, he did not order the cessation of all informal transfers. Nor did he pursue accountability for those who designed and implemented the Extraordinary Rendition Program. Instead, his Administration continued to quash rendition-related cases with the argument that such cases dangerously threatened to reveal “state secrets.” Although it is impossible to know precisely how many informal transfers were carried out by the Obama administration, the number plainly was significantly smaller than those conducted by the Bush Administration. Instead, President Obama increased the use of drones to target and kill suspected terrorists outside the United States, and continued the use of proxy detention in the name of fighting terrorism.

The Trump Administration presents alarming new risks: in addition to the anti-terrorism tools left in place by the Obama administration, President Trump has promised to use torture and said he would fill Guantánamo Bay with “bad dudes” captured in the fight against al-Qaeda and ISIS. While President Trump’s most disturbing campaign promises have not yet come to fruition, the administration’s lack of transparency surrounding counter-terrorism measures, the on-going U.S. military engagements in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, and the hunt for Al Qaeda in Yemen present opportunities for the U.S. government to return to — or worsen — the abusive practices it pioneered as part of the Extraordinary Rendition Program. With the publication of the National Security Strategy in December 2017, the Trump Administration renewed its commitment to fighting terrorism in aggressive terms with little consideration for human rights.

The threat that counter-terrorism measures will become more abusive is made more stark by the rise in nationalist governments pursuing protectionist policies with weakening regard to human rights guarantees. With governments moving to close borders, deport non-nationals, denaturalize their own citizens, and use informal means to transfer suspects, the mechanisms through which a state may transfer custody of an individual — and the permissible purposes for such handovers — have escaped careful scrutiny. In this era of global realignment, the human rights principles guiding inter-state cooperation in such matters must be reasserted. This chapter examines the legal norms governing informal transfers and detentions in this new era and sets out a minimum standard that must be upheld whenever a state renders an individual, no matter how extraordinary the context.

New Issue: Transnational Legal Theory

The latest issue of Transnational Legal Theory (Vol. 8, no. 4, 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Symposium: Roughan-Halpin: In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence
• Victor V. Ramraj, The elusive quest for precision in a messy pluralist reality
• Michael W. Dowdle, Do we really need a ‘pluralist jurisprudence’?
• Kirsty Gover, A fugitive jurisprudence?
• Jason Grant Allen, Encyclopaedia, genealogy and tradition in pursuit of pluralist jurisprudence
• Richard Collins, In pursuit of method in pluralist jurisprudence: what exactly is wrong with ‘non-pluralist jurisprudence’?
• Nicole Roughan & Andrew Halpin, A response
• Articles
• Lorenzo Cotula, The state of exception and the law of the global economy: a conceptual and empirico-legal inquiry
• Derek McKee, The platform economy: natural, neutral, consensual and efficient?

New Issue: Journal of Conflict Resolution

The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (Vol. 62, no. 4, April 2018) is out. Contents include:

• Heidrun Bohnet, Fabien Cottier, & Simon Hug, Conflict-induced IDPs and the Spread of Conflict
• Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, Civil War and the Formation of Social Trust in Kosovo: Posttraumatic Growth or War-related Distress?
• Karolina Milewicz, James Hollway, Claire Peacock, & Duncan Snidal, Beyond Trade: The Expanding Scope of the Nontrade Agenda in Trade Agreements
• William Spaniel & Peter Bils, Slow to Learn: Bargaining, Uncertainty, and the Calculus of Conquest
• Daniel Balliet, Joshua M. Tybur, Junhui Wu, Christian Antonellis, & Paul A. M. Van Lange, Political Ideology, Trust, and Cooperation: In-group Favoritism among Republicans and Democrats during a US National Election
• Benjamin T. Jones & Shawna K. Metzger, Evaluating Conflict Dynamics: A Novel Empirical Approach to Stage Conceptions
• Laura Sjoberg, Kelly Kadera, & Cameron G. Thies, Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship: Moving beyond Reiter’s Dichotomies toward Effective Synergies
• Jana von Stein, Exploring the Universe of UN Human Rights Agreements

Nowak & Charbord: Using Human Rights to Counter Terrorism

Manfred Nowak (Univ. of Vienna - Law) & Anne Charbord have published Using Human Rights to Counter Terrorism (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018). Contents include:

• Manfred Nowak & Anne Charbord, Key trends in the fight against terrorism and key aspects of international human rights law
• Martin Scheinin, Impact of post 9/11 counter-terrorism measures on all human rights
• Ben Emmerson, New counter-terrorism measures: Continuing challenges for human rights
• Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, The complexity and challenges of addressing the conditions conducive to terrorism
• Lisa Ginsborg, One step forward, two steps back: The Security Council, ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighters’, and human rights
• Richard Barrett & Tom Parker, Acting ethically in the shadows: Intelligence gathering and human rights
• Ulrich Garms, The preventive criminal justice strategy against terrorism and its human rights implications
• Lisa Oldring, Questions of accountability in countering terrorism

Forcese: Destroying the Caroline: The Frontier Raid That Reshaped the Right to War

Craig Forcese (Univ. of Ottawa - Law) has published Destroying the Caroline: The Frontier Raid That Reshaped the Right to War (Irwin Law 2018). Here's the abstract:

In the middle of night on 29 December 1837, Canadian militia commanded by a Royal Navy officer crossed the Niagara River to the United States and sank the Caroline, a steamboat being used by insurgents tied to the 1837 rebellion in Upper Canada. That incident, and the diplomatic understanding that settled it, have become shorthand in international law for the “inherent right to self-defence” exercised by states in far-off places and in different sorts of war. The Caroline is remembered today when drones kill terrorists and state leaders contemplate responses to threatening adversaries through military action.

But it is remembered by chance and not design, and often imperfectly.

This book tells the story of the Caroline affair and the colourful characters who populated it. Along the way, it highlights how the Caroline and claims of self-defence have been used — and misused — in response to modern challenges in international relations. It is the history of how a forgotten conflict on an unruly frontier has redefined the right to war.

Mills: Connecting Public and Private International Law

Alex Mills (Univ. College London - Law) has posted Connecting Public and Private International Law (in Linkages and Boundaries in Private and Public International Law, V. Ruiz Abou-Nigm, K. McCall-Smith & D. French, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The relationship between public and private international law is a topic which has long been debated, and which remains highly controversial. Despite an increasing range of scholarship looking at connections between the two fields, some modern public and private international lawyers would doubt that any deep relationship exists between the two subjects. This Chapter addresses these doubts by examining a link between public and private international law which arises in the context of sources, and exploring six connections between public and private international law – connections of (1) principle, (2) history, (3) functional commonality, (4) policy incorporation, (5) shared objectives, and (6) methodology.

New Issue: Review of International Studies

The latest issue of the Review of International Studies (Vol. 44, no. 2, April 2018) is out. Contents include:

• Anthony McKeown & John Glenn, The rise of resilience after the financial crises: a case of neoliberalism rebooted?
• Jan Stöckmann, Women, wars, and world affairs: Recovering feminist International Relations, 1915–39
• Lorenzo Cello, Taking history seriously in IR: Towards a historicist approach
• Eren Duzgun, Capitalism, Jacobinism and International Relations: Re-interpreting the Ottoman path to modernity
• Catherine Owen, John Heathershaw, & Igor Savin, How postcolonial is post-Western IR? Mimicry and mētis in the international politics of Russia and Central Asia
• Jonathan Luke Austin & Philippe Beaulieu-Brossard, (De)securitisation dilemmas: Theorising the simultaneous enaction of securitisation and desecuritisation
• Matt Sleat, Just cyber war?: Casus belli, information ethics, and the human perspective
• Monika Heupel, Gisela Hirschmann, & Michael Zürn, International organisations and human rights: What direct authority needs for its legitimation
• Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, The stakeholder model paradox: How the globalisation of politics fuels domestic advocacy

Seibert-Fohr: From Complicity to Due Diligence: When Do States Incur Responsibility for Their Involvement in Serious International Wrongdoing?

Anja Seibert-Fohr (Universität Heidelberg - Law) has posted From Complicity to Due Diligence: When Do States Incur Responsibility for Their Involvement in Serious International Wrongdoing? (German Yearbook of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Globalisation creates multiple challenges for the rule of law. States liaise in multiple ways and unfortunately not always for the common good. While the conventional rules of state responsibility are largely informed by an international order of coexistence where an internationally wrongful act is traced to a single state or a principal wrongdoer, realities look different today. There are many instances, in which more than one state is involved. If fundamental legal interests of the international community, such as the prohibition of genocide, other fundamental human rights and humanitarian standards, or the prohibition of the use of force are at stake, not only the main actors, accessories and bystanders incur responsibility for serious violations but other forms of involvement need to be addressed, too. Therefore, the article considers different modes of state involvement in serious violations of international law and the legal criteria for unlawful contributions. Giving special attention to participation below the level of complicity – when a State contributes to such serious violations without the respective positive knowledge – the author considers primary rules of international law that prohibit indirect participation, such as the duty to respect and ensure fundamental human rights. The focus on primary norms allows her to locate state responsibility for participation within the existing scheme of state responsibility without departing from the ILC rules on state responsibility (ARSIWA). The article argues in favour of a risk-based ex ante responsibility in order to prevent co-operation between States which violate fundamental legal norms of the international community. Accordingly, States incur responsibility for indirect participation if they do not exercise the necessary diligence to prevent such violations. Though due diligence is usually referred to when States fail to intervene in third party abuses it applies a fortiori in cases of active contributions. While the article concentrates on serious human rights violations it also refers to other fields of international law, including breaches of international humanitarian law. By specifying the legal parameters of due diligence as a general principle it also contributes to the scholarly debate on the content of due diligence in international law more generally.

Nolte: The International Law Commission and Community Interests

Georg Nolte (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Law) has posted The International Law Commission and Community Interests. Here's the abstract:

The paper looks at community interests in international law from the perspective of the International Law Commission. As the topics of the Commission are diverse, the outcome of its work is often seen as providing a sense of direction regarding general aspects of international law. After defining what he understands by “community interests”, the author looks at both secondary and primary rules of international law, as they have been articulated by the Commission, as well as their relevance for the recognition and implementation of community interests. The picture which emerges only partly fits the widespread narrative of “from self-interest to community interest”. Whereas the Commission has recognized, or developed, certain primary rules which more fully articulate community interests, it has been reluctant to reformulate secondary rules of international law, with the exception of jus cogens. The Commission has more recently rather insisted that the traditional State-consent-oriented secondary rules concerning the formation of customary international law and regarding the interpretation of treaties continue to be valid in the face of other actors and forms of action which push towards the recognition of more and thicker community interests.

Lecture: Treves on "The EU and the Law of the Sea - An Assessment"

On March 28, 2018, the Annual Lecture of the Queen Mary University of London Centre for European and International Legal Affairs will be delivered by Tulio Treves (Univ. of Milan - Law; formerly, Judge, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). The lecture's subject will be: "The EU and the Law of the Sea - An Assessment."

Conference: Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration

The 15th Annual ITA-ASIL Conference will take place April 4, 2018, in Washington, DC, immediately preceding the ASIL Annual Meeting. The theme is: "Diversity and Inclusion in International Arbitration." The program is here.

Conference: Combating Impunity: Targeting Kleptocrats and their Assets

On April 3, 2018, the George Washington University Law School, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, and the American Society of International Law will hold a conference on "Combating Impunity: Targeting Kleptocrats and their Assets," in Washington, DC. The program is here.

New Issue: Review of International Political Economy

The latest issue of the Review of International Political Economy (Vol. 25, no. 2, 2018) is out. Contents include:

• Shahar Hameiri & Fabio Scarpello, International development aid and the politics of scale
• Regine A. Spector, A regional production network in a predatory state: export-oriented manufacturing at the margins of the law
• Philip Schleifer & Yixian Sun, Emerging markets and private governance: the political economy of sustainable palm oil in China and India
• Andreas Jungherr, Matthias Mader, Harald Schoen & Alexander Wuttke, Context-driven attitude formation: the difference between supporting free trade in the abstract and supporting specific trade agreements
• Shawn Nichols, Expanding property rights under investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): class struggle in the era of transnational capital
• Colin M. Barry, Peace and conflict at different stages of the FDI lifecycle

Nyarango: A Jigsaw Puzzle or a Map? The Role of Treaties under Kenya's Constitution

Archibold Ombongi Nyarango (Gumbo and Company Advocates) has published A Jigsaw Puzzle or a Map? The Role of Treaties under Kenya's Constitution (Journal of African Law, Vol. 62, no. 1, February 2018). Here's the abstract:

Kenya's 2010 Constitution marks the first time that treaty law has been constitutionally declared part of Kenya's domestic law. However, the laconic drafting of the relevant provision leaves unanswered questions about the role of treaties. This article seeks to answer some of those questions, addresses conflicts between treaties and other laws, and concludes that treaties can be directly enforceable in domestic law unless they are expressly non-self-executing. Furthermore, domestic courts must apply treaties in accordance with the constitution, although the article also addresses the problems that this causes with article 103 of the UN Charter and the East African Community Treaty. Treaties that are applied directly domestically should be considered at a par with statutes enacted by the national Parliament and prevail over county laws. Human rights treaties should carry greater weight than conflicting statutes. Where a treaty is implemented into domestic legislation, the “parent” treaty should prevail where there is a conflict.

Conference: 7th Annual Cambridge International Law Journal Conference

On April 3-4, 2018, the Cambridge International Law Journal will host its 7th Annual Conference. The theme is: "Non-State Actors and International Law." The program is here.

New Issue: Journal of World Investment & Trade

The latest issue of the Journal of World Investment & Trade (Vol. 19, no. 1, 2018) is out. Contents include:

• Stephan W. Schill, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform at UNCITRAL: A Looming Constitutional Moment?
• Nicolás M. Perrone, UNCTAD’s World Investment Reports 1991–2015: 25 Years of Narratives Justifying and Balancing Foreign Investor Rights
• Arie Reich, Israel’s Foreign Investment Protection Regime in View of Developments in Its Energy Sector
• Matthew Happold & Relja Radović, The ECOWAS Court of Justice as an Investment Tribunal
• Tuğba Karagöz, The Influence of Investor-Centered Values in the Operation of Political Risk Insurance

Call for Papers: Unpacking Economic and Social Rights: International and Comparative Dimensions

The Institute of International and European Law of the University of Göttingen and the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law have issued a call for papers for a conference on “Unpacking Economic and Social Rights: International and Comparative Dimensions,” to take place, November 9-10, 2018, in Göttingen. The call is here.

AJIL Unbound Symposium: Framing Global Migration Law - Part III

AJIL Unbound has posted a symposium on "Framing Global Migration Law - Part III," the third in a three-part symposium. Parts I and II are here and here. The symposium includes an introduction by Jaya Ramji-Nogales and Peter J. Spiro and contributions by Joel Trachtman, Ralph Wilde, Audrey Macklin, Siobhán Mullally, Chantal Thomas, Iris Goldner Lang, and Moria Paz.

New Issue: Melbourne Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Melbourne Journal of International Law (Vol. 18, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Tribute
• Hilary Charlesworth, Karen Engle, Aeyal Gross, Vanja Hamzić, Gina Heathcote, Wayne Morgan & Rahul Rao, A Collection of Writings in Honour of Professor Dianne Otto
• Lecture
• Stephen Mathias, UN Peacekeeping Today: Legal Challenges and Uncertainties
• Articles
• Bérénice Boutin, Attribution of Conduct in International Military Operations: A Causal Analysis of Effective Control
• Rebecca Dowd & Jane McAdam, International Cooperation and Responsibility Sharing to Combat Climate Change: Lessons for International Refugee Law
• Andrew Godwin, Ian Ramsay & Miranda Webster, International Commercial Courts: The Singapore Experience
• Etienne Henry, Alleged Acquiescence of the International Community to Revisionist Claims of International Customary Law (with Special Reference to the Jus Contra Bellum Regime)
• Rodrigo Polanco Lazo & Sebastián Gómez Fiedler, A Requiem for the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Something New, Something Old and Something Borrowed?
• Peter Tzeng, The Peaceful Non-Settlement of Disputes: Article 4 of CMATS in Timor-Leste v Australia
• Tania Voon, Balancing Regulatory Autonomy with Liberalisation of Trade in Services: An Analytical Assessment of Australia's Obligations under Preferential Trade Agreements
• Weihuan Zhou, Chinese Investment in Australia: A Critical Analysis of the China–Australia Free Trade Agreement

New Issue: International Affairs

The latest issue of International Affairs (Vol. 94, no. 2, March 2018) is out. Contents include:

• Astrid H. M. Nordin & Mikael Weissmann, Will Trump make China great again? The belt and road initiative and international order
• David H. Ucko, Preventing violent extremism through the United Nations: the rise and fall of a good idea
• Rebecca Sanders, Norm spoiling: undermining the international women's rights agenda
• Peacebuilding in an Era of Pragmatism
• Louise Wiuff Moe & Finn Stepputat, Introduction: Peacebuilding in an era of pragmatism
• Cedric de Coning, Adaptive peacebuilding
• Louise Wiuff Moe, Counter-insurgency in the Somali territories: the ‘grey zone’ between peace and pacification
• Louise Riis Andersen, The HIPPO in the room: the pragmatic push-back from the UN peace bureaucracy against the militarization of UN peacekeeping
• Katja Lindskov Jacobse & Troels Gauslå Engell, Conflict prevention as pragmatic response to a twofold crisis: liberal interventionism and Burundi
• Jan Bachmann & Peer Schouten, Concrete approaches to peace: infrastructure as peacebuilding
• Finn Stepputat, Pragmatic peace in emerging governscapes

New Issue: Michigan Journal of International Law

The latest issue of the Michigan Journal of International Law (Vol. 38, no. 3, Fall 2017) is out. Contents include:

• Special Feature: Contemporary Slavery
• Rebecca J. Scott, International Law and Contemporary Slavery: The Long View
• Vladislava Stoyanova, United Nations Against Slavery: Unravelling Concepts, Institutions and Obligations
• Bénédicte Bourgeois, Statutory Progress and Obstacles to Achieving an Effective Criminal Legislation Against the Modern Day Forms of Slavery: The Case of France
• Carlos H. B. Haddad, The Definition of Slave Labor for Criminal Enforcement and the Experience of Adjudication: The Case of Brazil

Conference: Thirtieth Investment Treaty Forum Public Conference

The British Institute of International and Comparative Law will host the Thirtieth Investment Treaty Forum Public Conference on May 11, 2018. The theme is: "Enforcement in International Investment Law." The program is not yet available. Here's the idea:

From enforcement of an arbitration agreement to enforcement of provisional measures and final awards, parties and tribunals have to rely on domestic authorities.

In addition to difficult issues common to any arbitration proceedings, such as enforcement against non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, tracing the assets of reluctant debtors, and stay of enforcement, investor-State disputes add other complex issues.

These include State immunity, different regimes under the New York Convention, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention and other regional conventions, as well as in States non-signatories to such conventions. Additional difficulties arise with the enforcement of non-pecuniary provisional measures and cost awards.

The recent decision of the European Court of Justice in Achmea v Slovakia poses serious questions related to the enforceability of intra-EU investment treaties and awards.

These issues require a good understanding of the interplay between public international and domestic law.

To discuss these issues the Thirtieth ITF Public Conference will convene in London on 11 May 2018. The Forum will bring together leading arbitrators, judges, practitioners and academics, drawn primarily from ITF members, to debate issues related to enforcement in international investment law.

The Conference will also mark the sixtieth anniversary of the 1958 New York Convention, which continues to play an important role in international investment disputes.