International humanitarian law has been perceived till now as encompassing only judicial cases concerning refugee protection or war crimes prosecutions, particularly in domestic fora. Yet, the last decade has witnessed a revolution in the way judicial bodies—international and domestic alike—are ready to tackle complex security aspects pertaining to the laws of war. The present volume follows the international and domestic courts’ jurisprudential evolution as they deal with issues like the classification of armed conflicts, direct participation in hostilities and the nexus between international humanitarian law and human rights law. Projecting the field’s jurisprudential development, the volume examines the role of international humanitarian law also in the realms of quasi-judicial bodies.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Jinks, Maogoto, & Solomon: Applying International Humanitarian Law to Judicial and Quasi Judicial Bodies - International and Domestic Aspects
- Volume 364
- Giorgio Gaja, The Protection of General Interests in the International Community. General Course on Public International Law
- H.P. Glenn, La conciliation des lois. Cours général de droit international privé
Call for Submissions: The World Trade Organisation
The editors of the International Community Law Review are pleased to announce a call for papers for a special issue of the journal on ‘The World Trade Organisation’.
The International Community Law Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal, published quarterly by Brill/Nijhoff. The journal addresses all aspects of international law and the international community, and aims to explore the implications of various traditions of international law and how the international community uses and adapts international law to deal with new and emerging challenges.
Submissions are invited for the special issue on all aspects of the topic. Areas of interest may include (but are not restricted to):
All those with an interest in the subject are invited to contribute articles for publication in the special issue. Proposals for papers should be should be no more than 10000 words, and be submitted to the editors by 31st January 2015. Publication is expected in the second quarter of 2016. For further information please contact Dr Sarah Singer at email@example.com
- The World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the protection of natural resources;
- Standard of review in the context of the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening);
- The input of the WTO in the development of the law of treaties, especially in relation to:
- the object and purpose of a treaty;
- systemic integration;
- evolutionary or dynamic interpretation.
Call for Papers
Lex Mercatoria Publica - Workshop
The (Comparative) Constitutional Law of Private‐Public Arbitration
Heidelberg, November 21‐22, 2014
Arbitrations between private economic actors and public law bodies are on the rise, both under international investment treaties and contracts between private and public actors, such as concession agreements or public‐private‐partnerships. Arbitrators, instead of domestic courts, now settle a wide variety of private‐public disputes, ranging from the simple non‐fulfillment of contractual obligations to complex disputes about the limits of states’ regulatory powers. Yet, in doing so, they not only settle disputes, but also review the legality of government acts and incrementally develop the applicable law. Arbitrators thereby become important law‐makers that generate the law governing public‐private relations rather independently of specific domestic legal systems and their democratic processes. The body of law thus developed, designated for present purposes as lex mercatoria publica, may then prospectively steer and restrict government conduct.
Relegating the resolution of private‐public disputes to arbitration raises questions of legitimacy and concerns for principles of constitutional law, such as democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights, because governments are controlled, and the concrete delineation of private rights and public interests is drawn, not by democratically legitimized domestic courts, but by party‐appointed one‐off arbitral tribunals. Concerns of a constitutional nature are all the more significant as arbitration proceedings in private‐public disputes do not conform to safeguards that are usually in place in public law adjudication in domestic courts, such as transparency of the proceedings, possibilities for third‐party participation, limitations on damages as public law remedies, or the need for public law expertise of adjudicators. Instead, arbitration generally follows private law rationales, such as party autonomy and confidentiality of the proceedings. All of this may endanger how states regulate in the public interest. It raises questions, such as: how are arbitrators in such proceedings legitimized? What powers do they, or should they have? What is their proper role when reviewing government acts? What is the appropriate normative framework governing their activity? Is the consent of the disputing parties sufficient to legitimize private‐public arbitrations, or are farther‐reaching public law strictures necessary?
The ERC‐funded Lex Mercatoria Publica Project under the direction of Dr. Stephan Schill (a brief description is here) aims at developing a solid framework for assessing legitimacy concerns relating to private‐public arbitration. However, rather than discussing in the abstract how constitutional ideals may impact private‐public arbitration, it aims at developing criteria to assess the legitimacy of private‐public arbitrations through comparative analysis of concrete constitutional regimes. It wants to explore the conditions under which different domestic legal systems, as well as supranational regional regimes, permit private‐public arbitrations, and distil, if possible, common principles, or develop different models, from such a comparative exercise. How does, for example, Columbian, Brazilian, Chinese, Indian, French, Russian, South‐African, or US (constitutional) law and practice look at the involvement of its and other government entities in arbitration? Does it treat it differently from commercial arbitration between private parties? To which extent does it permit it? How does it regulate private‐arbitration? What control mechanisms does it establish in order to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded when public entities agree to have disputes resolved through arbitration rather than in domestic courts? Similarly, what is the position, for example, of ASEAN, the EU, the Council of Europe, the Inter‐American Convention on Human Rights, OHADA, or COMESA on these issues?
Against this background, a workshop is convened at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg on November 21‐22, 2014, which focuses on the constitutional law of private‐public arbitration in a comparative perspective. It aims to receive contributions from participants that will address, in the form of national reports or (regional) comparative analyses, how a specific jurisdiction (e.g., Spain, Egypt, or Russia), a group of countries (e.g., West‐Africa, Central‐Asia, Central Europe), or a regional organization (e.g., OHADA, ASEAN) approach and regulate private‐public arbitration and how they ensure that the public interest is safeguarded when public entities agree to arbitrate disputes. Contract‐based as well as investment treaty‐based, domestic and international arbitration should be considered.
We hope to receive contributions reporting on jurisdictions that are representative of as many of the world’s legal systems as possible and particularly encourage contributions from jurisdictions that are usually under‐represented in comparative law research, including from Latin‐America, Africa, and Asia. Possible contributors can be specialists in arbitration with expertise in constitutional and administrative law or vice‐versa specialists in constitutional or administrative law with knowledge of arbitration.
Submission of Proposals and Timeline
Original and non‐published submissions from both junior and senior academics and practitioners are invited on the themes outlined above. An abstract of max. 800 words and the applicant’s CV should be sent (in .pdf or .doc format) to lex‐firstname.lastname@example.org by 15 September 2014. Abstracts must include the legal order(s) considered, the approach taken by the author, and the major arguments to be made.
A selection panel will consider all abstracts and notify applicants of acceptance by 30 September 2014. Applicants must be prepared to circulate a draft of their paper by 10 November 2014. Following the Workshop, papers must be prepared for publication in an edited monograph with a leading international publisher. Costs for travel and accommodation will be covered by the organizers.
If you are unable to attend the workshop, but are interested in contributing to the edited volume, we are equally happy to receive your statement of interest. Please direct inquiries to lex‐email@example.com.
Monday, July 28, 2014
- Raphael Bitton, Intelligence Agents, Autonomous Slaves and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wrong (and Right) Concept of Personal Autonomy
- Sergii Shcherbak, How Should Bitcoin Be Regulated?
- Zygimantas Juska, Obstacles in European Competition Law Enforcement: A Potential Solution from Collective Redress
- Jaime Rodriguez Medal, Transparency in the Staff Selection Procedure of the EU Institutions: Comments on the Pachtitits Case
- Mandana Niknejad, European Union Towards the Banking Union, Single Supervisory Mechanism and Challenges on the Road Ahead
Call for Papers
International Interdisciplinary Conference
Working Group of Young Scholars in Public International Law
The Transnational in International Law
University of Bremen
25 ‒ 27 March 2015
International legal scholarship has since long tried to comprehend the diversifica-tion of actors, rules, and authorities in international law. Almost 60 years ago, Philip Jessup, who was later appointed as a judge at the International Court of Justice, developed the idea of a “transnational law”, including “all law which regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers”. His approach aimed at substitut-ing and expanding the traditional notion of international law which used to be confined to inter-state relations. Recently, similar approaches have regained significance in analyzing the impact of what is commonly called globalization on the law. It still remains unclear, however, how such approaches affect the conventional concepts, instruments, and methods of international law.
To grasp the alleged transformation of international law is all the more difficult since the notion of transnationalism, or transnationalization, is employed in various meanings with regard to the law. At the outset, two conceptions may be dis-tinguished. According to a more comprehensive understanding, transnationalization of law denotes the intertwinement and interaction of different legal actors or orders (state, sub-state, inter-state, supra-state, non-state). Pursuant to narrower conception, by contrast, transnationalization of law only points to the inclusion of non-state actors in regulating cross-border issues. Both notions are not mutually exclusive. They depart from the shared observation that the law regulating cross-border issues has become more complex than ever before. Law-making authority is no longer solely claimed by states, but also by international and supranational organizations as well as non-state actors. In the resulting plurality of actors, fora, norms, and implementation procedures, the relationship of the different constituencies is not always clearly defined.
Against this background, the conference seeks to explore the significance of the concept of transnationalism within and beyond international law. On the one hand, it intends to define and demarcate the potential and limits of the concept of transnationalism in law. On the other hand, it strives to inquire into the conse-quences of a possible transnationalization for international law. From an empirical perspective, it calls upon to ascertain the remaining role of the state in cross-border regulation. From a normative perspective, it invites to argue whether the state deserves any preponderance as a resource of legitimacy in global governance.
The general subject allows for various topics and approaches. Empirical, normative, and legal-dogmatic contributions are equally welcome. Interdisciplinary studies would be particularly helpful, especially from the fields of history, sociology, philosophy, and economics. Possible subjects may include:
What does transnationalism, or transnationalization, mean with regard to inter-national law? How does the transnationalization of law affect the concepts, in-struments, and methods of international law?
Against which rules and principles of law is the action of transnational corpora-tions and arbitration panels to be scrutinized? Are non-state actors bound by human rights?
Under what conditions may the practice of international institutions which inter-pret their competencies and legal instruments dynamically be deemed legitimate? Does the participation of non-governmental institutions enhance or impair the le-gitimacy of law-making processes across borders?
In which way may the interaction of different legal orders and actors be regulat-ed? How can conflicts of norms be solved?
The two-day conference will take place at the Center for Transnational Studies of the University of Bremen from 25 until 27 March 2015. It is supposed to provide a forum of dialogue between junior and senior researchers. Therefore, established professors will comment on the contributions of younger scholars (advanced doc-toral and post-doctoral stages). Proposals for papers of no more than 500 words and a short CV should be submitted to Transnational_Law@gmx.com by 31 October 2014. Selected participants will be notified by 30 November 2014. Elaborated papers of no more than 10.000 words (including footnotes) are expected by 28 February 2015. Expenses for travel and accommodation will be covered to a certain extent.
Organizing committee: Dr. Anuscheh Farahat, LL.M. (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg), Dr. Birgit Peters, LL.M. (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster), Dr. Lars Viellechner, LL.M. (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin).
Submission of abstracts: 31 October 2014 (max. 500 words, to: Transnational_Law@gmx.com)
Notification of participants: 30 November 2014
Submission of papers: 28 February 2015 (max. 10.000 words)
- David P. Forsythe, The UN Security Council and Human Rights: Promising Developments, Persistent Problems
- Janine Natalya Clark, A Crime of Identity: Rape and Its Neglected Victims
- Jelena Subotić, Legitimacy, Scope, and Conflicting Claims on the ICTY: In the Aftermath of Gotovina, Haradinaj and Perišić
- Reed M. Wood, Aiding Labor: Foreign Aid and the Promotion of Labor Rights in LDCs
- Daniel B. Braaten, What Rights and Which Countries?: US Human Rights Policy in the Multilateral Development Banks
- Jesse Kirkpatrick, A Modest Proposal: A Global Court of Human Rights
- Keith David Watenpaugh, Between Communal Survival and National Aspiration: Armenian Genocide Refugees, the League of Nations, and the Practices of Interwar Humanitarianism
- G. Daniel Cohen, Elusive Neutrality: Christian Humanitarianism and the Question of Palestine, 1948–1967
- Vanessa Ogle, State Rights Against Private Capital: The "New International Economic Order" and the Struggle Over Aid, Trade, and Foreign Investment, 1962–1981
- David Shneer, Ghostly Landscapes: Soviet Liberators Photograph the Holocaust
- The Editors, From Anti-Politics to Post-Neoliberalism: A Conversation with James Ferguson
- Bronwyn Leebaw, Justice, Charity, or Alibi? Humanitarianism, Human Rights, and "Humanity Law"
- Umut Özsu, International Legal Fields
- Bradley R. Simpson, "Democratic Development" in Neoliberal Drag
Talmon: Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ's Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion
Methodology is probably not the strong point of the International Court of Justice (the Court) or indeed of international law in general. Unlike its approach to methods of treaty interpretation, the Court has hardly ever stated its methodology for determining the existence, content and scope of the rules of customary international law which it applies. There are only isolated references in the Court’s jurisprudence to the inductive and deductive method of law determination. It is not only the Court itself that has largely remained silent on its methodology for the determination of customary international law. The legal literature also has little to say on this subject. In view of the fact that determining the law always also means developing and, ultimately, creating the law, it is surprising that the question of the Court’s methodology has attracted such little interest. This article aims to refocus attention on the methodology used by the Court when determining the rules of customary international law which it applies, and to highlight the role played by methodology in the development of customary international law. It starts by defining the terms ‘induction’ and ‘deduction’ and examining their use by the Court. It then explores the situations in which the Court uses inductive and deductive reasoning, the different forms and functions of deduction, and the relationship between the two methods. The article challenges the various theories distinguishing between inductive and deductive custom, and demonstrates that the main method employed by the Court is neither induction nor deduction but assertion.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Roscini: International Law, Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones and the Proposed Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
The chapter discusses the international law issues arising from the treaties establishing nuclear weapon-free zones in inhabited regions of the world. In particular, it focuses on the proposed zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, identifying the potential legal problems and making suggestions for possible solutions.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
- Freya Baetens & Vid Prislan, The Dissemination of International Scholarship: The Future of Books and Book Reviews
- International Legal Theory - Symposium: Locating Nature
- Kishan Khoday, Vanessa Lamb, Tyler McCreary, Karin Mickelson, Usha Natarajan, & Ileana Porras, Locating Nature: Making and Unmaking International Law: Introduction
- Usha Natarajan & Kishan Khoday, Locating Nature: Making and Unmaking International Law
- Tyler McCreary & Vanessa Lamb, A Political Ecology of Sovereignty in Practice and on the Map: The Technicalities of Law, Participatory Mapping, and Environmental Governance
- Karin Mickelson, The Maps of International Law: Perceptions of Nature in the Classification of Territory
- Ileana Porras, Appropriating Nature: Commerce, Property, and the Commodification of Nature in the Law of Nations
- International Law and Practice
- Seline Trevisanut, The Principle of Non-Refoulement and the De-Territorialization of Border Control at Sea
- Antonio Segura-Serrano, International Economic Law at a Crossroads: Global Governance and Normative Coherence
- Panagiotis Delimatsis, Transparency in the WTO’s Decision-Making
- James D. Fry & Melissa H. Loja, The Roots of Historic Title: Non-Western Pre-Colonial Normative Systems and Legal Resolution of Territorial Disputes
- Hague International Tribunals: International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Leila Nadya Sadat & Jarrod M. Jolly, Seven Canons of ICC Treaty Interpretation: Making Sense of Article 25’s Rorschach Blot
Friday, July 25, 2014
- The Global Forum
- Erica Chenoweth, Civil Resistance: Reflections on an Idea Whose Time Has Come
- Special Section: Principles from the Periphery: The Neglected Southern Sources of Global Norms
- Eric Helleiner, Introduction
- Martha Finnemore & Michelle Jurkovich, Getting a Seat at the Table: The Origins of Universal Participation and Modern Multilateral Conferences
- Eric Helleiner, Southern Pioneers of International Development
- Kathryn Sikkink, Latin American Countries as Norm Protagonists of the Idea of International Human Rights
- Amitav Acharya, Who Are the Norm Makers? The Asian-African Conference in Bandung and the Evolution of Norms
- Charlotte Dany, Janus-faced NGO Participation in Global Governance: Structural Constraints for NGO Influence
- Andrew Wolman, Welcoming a New International Human Rights Actor? The Participation of Subnational Human Rights Institutions at the UN
- Elton Skendaj, International Insulation from Politics and the Challenge of State Building: Learning from Kosovo
- Patrick Dumberry, Denial of Justice under NAFTA Article 1105: A Review of 20 Years of Case Law
- Romain Dupeyré, Les arbitres et centres d’arbitrage face à leurs responsabilités : le droit français à son point d’équilibre
- Heike Wollgast & Ignacio De Castro, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: New 2014 WIPO Rules; WIPO FRAND Arbitration
- Joel I. Colón-Ríos, A new typology of judicial review of legislation
- Jonathan W. Kuyper, The democratic potential of systemic pluralism
- Zoran Oklopcic, Three arenas of struggle: A contextual approach to the constituent power of ‘the people’
- Theresa Reinold & Michael Zürn, ‘Rules about rules’ and the endogenous dynamics of international law: Dissonance reduction as a mechanism of secondary rule-making
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Call for rapporteurs for the (2nd) Symposium on the Protection of People Fleeing Armed Conflict
The Law Faculty of the University of Luxembourg and the UNHCR are seeking rapporteurs for the (2nd) Symposium on the Protection of People Fleeing Armed Conflict, which will take place on 20 October 2014 in Luxembourg. The subject of the symposium will be the legal protection of people fleeing armed conflict and other situations of violence, examined in the context of the UNHCR’s new Guidelines for the Protection of People Fleeing Violence and Conflict Across Borders, and recent developments in the case law of European regional and national courts.
Rapporteurs will assist the editor of the conference report. The main responsibilities are the following:
We invite junior scholars (PhDs, post-docs, and fellows) with research interests in the field to submit their CVs (in English) and a sample of their work (ideally on refugee law) to firstname.lastname@example.org before 31 August 2014. The Fonds National de la Recherche – Luxembourg will cover the costs of travel and accommodation for the rapporteurs.
- Write summaries of selected Symposium sessions
- Assist the facilitator during the Symposium to ensure the event runs smoothly.
- Interview with Walter T. Gwenigale - Minister of Health and Social Welfare of the Republic of Liberia
- Research Articles
- Fiona Terry, Violence against health care: insights from Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Enrico Pavignani, Markus Michael, Maurizio Murru, Mark E. Beesley & Peter S. Hill, Making sense of apparent chaos: health-care provision in six country case studies
- Robin Coupland, The role of health-related data in promoting the security of health care in armed conflict and other emergencies
- In conversation with the members of the National Permanent Roundtable for the Respect of the Medical Mission in Colombia
- Alexander Breitegger, The legal framework applicable to insecurity and violence affecting the delivery of health care in armed conflicts and other emergencies
- Amrei Müller, States' obligations to mitigate the direct and indirect health consequences of non-international armed conflicts: complementarity of IHL and the right to health
- Katherine H. A. Footer & Leonard S. Rubenstein, A human rights approach to health care in conflict
- Vivienne Nathanson, Medical ethics in peacetime and wartime: the case for a better understanding
- Laurent Gisel, Can the incidental killing of military doctors never be excessive?
A topical and timely subject for study, the question of procedural fairness entails the identification of fundamental principles inherent to the judicial (as well as, mutatis mutandis, arbitral) process. Whilst the manifestation of such core standards of fairness will necessarily diverge according to the particular international court, the workshop seeks aims to identify their essence with reference to the procedural issues arising in practice. The aim of this workshop is to bring academics and practitioners together to initiate ground breaking research into this novel topic. The workshop employs a comparative approach whereby participants will analyse the procedures and practices of various international courts and tribunals. It aims to identify patterns of commonality and divergence in the core standards of procedural fairness of international courts and to develop a holistic understanding of the nature of procedural fairness and the challenges to its realisation in the international judicial system.
If an old treaty regulating 'commerce' or forbidding 'degrading treatment of persons' is to be interpreted decades after its conclusion, does 'commerce' or 'degrading treatment of persons' have the same meaning at the time of interpretation as they had when the treaty was concluded? The evolutionary interpretation of treaties has proven one of the most controversial topics in the practice of international law. Indeed, it has been seen as going against the very grain of the law of treaties, and has been argued to be contrary to the intention of the parties, breaching the principle of consent. This book asks what the place of evolutionary interpretation is within the understanding of treaties, at a time when many important international legal instruments are over five decades old. It sets out to place the evolutionary interpretation of treaties on a firm footing within the Vienna rules of interpretation, as codified in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The book demonstrates that the evolutionary interpretation of treaties in common with all other types of interpretation is in fact based upon an objective understanding of the intention of the parties. In order to marry intention and evolution, the book argues that, on the one hand, evolutionary interpretation is the product of the correct application of Articles 31-33 and, on the other, that Articles 31-33 are geared towards the objective establishment of the intention of the parties. The evolutionary interpretation of treaties is therefore shown to represent an intended evolution.
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that the EU will accede to the system of human rights protection of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Protocol No 9 in the Treaty of Lisbon opens the way for accession. This represents a major change in the relationship between two organisations that have co-operated closely in the past, though the ECHR has hitherto exercised only an indirect constitutional control over the EU legal order through scrutiny of EU Member States. The accession of the EU to the ECHR is expected to put an end to the informal dialogue, and allegedly also competition between the two regimes in Europe and to establish formal (both normative and institutional) hierarchies. In this new era, some old problems will be solved and new ones will appear. Questions of autonomy and independence, of attribution and allocation of responsibility, of co-operation, and legal pluralism will all arise, with consequences for the protection of human rights in Europe.
This book seeks to understand how relations between the two organisations are likely to evolve after accession, and whether this new model will bring more coherence in European human rights protection. The book analyses from several different, yet interconnected, points of view and relevant practice the draft Accession Agreement, shedding light on future developments in the ECHR and beyond. Contributions in the book span classic public international law, EU law and the law of the ECHR, and are written by a mix of legal and non-legal experts from academia and practice.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
- Alexandre de Fontmichel, Martin Donato, & Alexandre Meyniel, Vue d’ensemble du régime juridique du délibéré arbitral en droit français de l’arbitrage
- Ugo Draetta, Potential Inefficiencies Caused by the Document Production Process in International Arbitration
- Yves Herinckx, Liability for Inappropriate Interim Measures in Commercial Arbitration
This article presents a new interpretation of the Chapeau of Article XX of the GATT. The basis for this interpretation is a structural analysis of Article XX according to which this provision establishes a right to adopt measures for specific purposes that is subject to specific conditions set out in the subparagraphs of Article XX and horizontal conditions set out in the Chapeau. The article argues that the conditions in the subparagraphs are focused on the trade restrictive effects of these measures. The horizontal conditions in the Chapeau, on the other hand, are focused on two different aspects of these measures. One condition is focused on the discriminatory effects of these measures, which can be justified, and which in practice result from the non-application of the restrictive effects of these measures (these restrictive effects being justified under the subparagraphs) to competitive products from other origins. The second condition is focused on any protectionist purpose of these measures that is ‘disguised’ by a legitimate purpose, and this cannot be justified. The article goes on to interpret these conditions, based on a fundamentally economic conception of the discrimination conditions, and concludes by drawing some analogies between Article XX and Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
Ferdinandusse: Improving Inter-State Cooperation for the National Prosecution of International Crimes: Towards a New Treaty?
The magnitude and the nature of the human rights violations that engulfed Rwanda in 1994 prompted both the Rwandan government and the international community to establish different accountability mechanisms in order to hold perpetrators accountable. At the international level, the UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to try those bearing the greatest responsibility, the Rwandan national courts were to deal with so-called category one offenders, whereas Gacaca courts initially handled the bulk of cases that could not be handled by the ICTR and national courts (so-called category two and three perpetrators). Therefore, Rwanda offers a unique opportunity to analyse the interplay of criminal justice systems on different levels. Against this background, the study, which is divided into seven chapters, engages in disentangling the conflicting as well as overlapping elements the three justice mechanisms entail. Despite the already existing scholarship on this topic, the book offers new insights into the domestic case law of Rwanda which is under researched in comparison to the work of the ICTR. With this it adds a valuable new perspective to the international debate from the viewpoint of a Rwandan legal scholar.
- Karisa Cloward, False Commitments: Local Misrepresentation and the International Norms Against Female Genital Mutilation and Early Marriage
- Michael C. Horowitz & Allan C. Stam, How Prior Military Experience Influences the Future Militarized Behavior of Leaders
- Seva Gunitsky, From Shocks to Waves: Hegemonic Transitions and Democratization in the Twentieth Century
- Jeff D. Colgan, The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Limits of OPEC in the Global Oil Market
- Idean Salehyan, David Siroky & Reed M. Wood, External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities
- Leslie Johns & Krzysztof J. Pelc, Who Gets to Be In the Room? Manipulating Participation in WTO Disputes
- Research Notes
- Stephanie J. Rickard & Teri L. Caraway, International Negotiations in the Shadow of National Elections
- K. Amber Curtis, Joseph Jupille & David Leblang, Iceland on the Rocks: The Mass Political Economy of Sovereign Debt Resettlement