This chapter analyzes how the methodological transition of the UN Security Council’s sanctions regimes has necessitated, as well as justified, greater changes in domestic law. This chapter examines the cases of two East Asian countries, the People’s of Republic of China (PRC) and Japan. The combined efforts to depict the two countries’ political and legal positions highlight the relevance of domestic political and legal contexts in ensuring the implementation of the UN Security Council’s international sanctions.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Friday, September 23, 2016
It has become conventional wisdom that once the UK leaves the EU it will have to renegotiate core aspects of its WTO rights and obligations, and in particular its concessions under Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article XX of the GATS. This article argues that, on the contrary, based on WTO law, GATT 1947 practice, and the rules of state succession, the position of the UK within the WTO will not change at all. First, the UK is already a full WTO member with full multilateral WTO rights and obligations, even if its commitments are set out in the EU's schedules. What will change after Brexit is simply that the exercise of these rights, and the assumption of responsibility (ie attribution) of these obligations will revert from the EU to the WTO. What remains is to identify these rights and obligations. This is straightforward for rights and obligations that apply erga omnes partes to WTO Members. It is more difficult to identify the UK's obligations in relation to tariff rate quotas and agricultural subsidies. However, this can be done, and, it is submitted, the UK is also entitled to submit a new schedule for certification as a 'change' not amounting to a 'modification' of its schedule. Any objections will, ultimately, have to be resolved in dispute settlement proceedings, where it is likely that, with properly designed schedules, the UK will prevail. This article also argues against the relevance of the territorial application clause in the EU and EU Member State GATS schedule, in light of customary international law on state succession, and contends, finally, that the UK is entitled to succeed to the Government Procurement Agreement as concluded by the EU in respect of UK covered entities.
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR A SYMPOSIUM
The Iraq Inquiry Report
The 2016 volume of the British Yearbook of International Law will feature a symposium examining the systemic issues that arise from the Iraq Inquiry Report on questions of international law, government and military decision-making, responsibility and accountability and the conduct of British foreign relations. By way of example, potential lines of inquiry could include (but are not limited to) an examination of
- the implications of the Report’s findings for the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq;
- the consequences/effect of the absence of direct consideration of international law in the Report (what does this tell us (if anything) about the role of domestic inquiries and of international law?);
- the differences between the Report and reports prepared in other states dealing with some or all of the same issues, possibly including reflection on the disparate treatment of public international law;
- the ways in which ‘state intelligence’ is handled by both those charged with making a decision on whether to deploy armed forces and by the authors of the Report itself;
- the relationship between policy and law evinced by the Inquiry and the Report;
- how decisions were made in the lead up to the final decision to deploy armed forces in Iraq – what lessons can be drawn for decisionmaking processes and foreign policy?
- how international lawyers – scholars, judges, practitioners and legal advisers – should approach questions of state decision-making in light of the Report, and the potential implications for analysing state practice in international law;
- whether the inquiry process has achieved some form of ‘responsibility’: what is the likely effect of the Report in securing responsibility and accountability? (Both concepts to be broadly defined.) What does the Inquiry process/Report tell us about how a state deals with the fact that it may have breached international law? Does the domestic inquiry process help to secure accountability, or does it obscure/diffuse it?
- the dynamic between the focus on specific individuals in the Report (and the public perception that such individuals should be held accountable) and the notion of state – i.e. collective – responsibility?
Abstracts of 500–1000 words are to be sent to the Assistant Editors at BritishYearbookIL@gmail.com by 17:00 GMT on 9 December 2016.
Authors considering a submission are encouraged to contact the Editors-in-Chief:
Professor Catherine Redgwell
Professor Eyal Benvenisti
or the Assistant Editors:
BritishYearbookIL@gmail.com informally to discuss the scope of their submission.
The Editorial Team will conduct an initial review of abstracts and advise authors of their decisions by the end of January 2017.
Full papers will then be due by 1 June 2017, via the ScholarOne system, with the final decision of publication made after an editorial review. Full papers should be between 8,000 and 10,000 words (inclusive of footnotes), in the style preferred by the Yearbook.
Full papers will be released online under the Advance Access scheme once editing is complete, and the hard copy volume will appear in 2017.
- October 7, 2016: Gerry Simpson (LSE), Cold war international law
- October 14, 2016: Mamadou Hébié (Leiden Univ.), Territorial sovereignty by treaty: a study of the agreements between colonial powers and local political entities
- October 21, 2016: Rita Kesselring (Basel Univ.), Victimhood, law and the body
- October 28, 2016: Christine Chinkin (LSE), International law and women, peace and security (Q&A session)
- November 4, 2016: Adam Branch (Univ. of Cambridge), After the ICC? The politics and possibilities of an African Criminal Court
- November 11, 2016: Jure Vidmar (Maastricht Univ.), Legal capacity, state responsibility, and the use of force
- November 18, 2016: Doreen Lustig (Tel Aviv Univ.), Late 19th-century international law: between facilitation and constraint
- November 25, 2016: William Magnuson (Texas A&M Univ.), Unilateral regulation of global corporate problems
- December 2, 2016: Jan Wouters (KU Leuven), Brussels meets Westphalia: the EU in the United Nations
Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals includes, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
This interdisciplinary study engages law, history, and political theory in a first attempt to crystallize the lessons the global 'refugee crisis' can teach us about the nature of international law. It connects the dots between the actions of Jewish migrants to Palestine after WWII, Vietnamese 'boatpeople', Haitian refugees seeking to reach Florida, Middle Eastern migrants and refugees bound to Australia, and Syrian refugees currently crossing the Mediterranean, and then legal responses by states and international organizations to these movements. Through its account of maritime migration, the book proposes a theory of human rights modelled around an encounter between individuals in which one of the parties is at great risk. It weaves together primary sources, insights from the work of twentieth-century thinkers such as Hannah Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, and other legal materials to form a rich account of an issue of increasing global concern.
Call for Papers: Transnational and International Environmental Crime: Synergies, Priorities and Challenges
Transnational and International Environmental Crime: Synergies, Priorities and Challenges
*** CALL FOR PAPERS ***
Wednesday 15 February 2017
University of Lincoln, UK
The September 2016 Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation published by the Office of the ICC Prosecutor (OTP) indicating a willingness to investigate “Rome Statute crimes that are committed by means of, or that result in, inter alia, the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land” (para 41) is a timely reminder as to the devastating, global and human impact of environmental crime. Of course, the scope of ICC jurisdiction over such crime is limited and the thresholds required likely to be equally onerous. Nevertheless, it reflects a growing imperative; as the 2016 UNEP-Interpol Report, The Rise of Environmental Crime, noted: “Environmental crime is vastly expanding and increasingly endangering not only wildlife populations but entire ecosystems, sustainable livelihoods and revenue streams to governments” (p.7). Moreover, the UN Security Council has also recognised the complex links between poaching, wildlife trafficking and threats to international peace and security (see, for instance, UNSC Res 2134 (2014) (Central African Republic) and 2136 (2014) (Democratic Republic of Congo)).
This one-day symposium hosted by the Lincoln Centre for Environmental Law and Justice, University of Lincoln, UK will explore transnational environmental crime, the possibility for investigation and prosecution under the Rome Statute, and other legal and administrative responses to environmental harm. It will reflect the nuanced interplay between individual, corporate and sometimes State interests in environmental harm and the commission of “environmental crime” – a term itself which requires further clarification and is open to contestation. Not all environmental harm, for instance, is appropriately criminalised or viewed as requiring criminal sanctions. Land-grabbing, for instance, is a highly emotive subject, but the contours of its illegality and its contribution to other illegal acts (eg. crimes against humanity) is far from clear.
Papers are encouraged on the general themes, as well as on particular environmental crimes (eg illegal logging, illegal fishing wildlife poaching, illegal shipments of hazardous waste). The symposium will actively consider prosecutorial strategy, international strategies for cooperation, the role of the Rome Statute in environmental crime, and the nature and status of victims in environmental crimes. As the Policy Paper on Case Selection itself suggests, not all serious crimes under national law will be, or can be, selected for OTP investigation and prosecution but nonetheless it is desirable that such criminal systems operate in a complementary manner “to combat impunity” (para 7).
To submit your paper for the event, e-mail a title and a 300 word abstract to Centre Co-Director Prof. Matthew Hall at the University of Lincoln at firstname.lastname@example.org (@profmatthewhall)
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
International law burst on the scene as a new field in the late nineteenth century. Where did it come from? Rage for Order finds the origins of international law in empires—especially in the British Empire’s sprawling efforts to refashion the imperial constitution and use it to order the world in the early part of that century.
Lauren Benton and Lisa Ford uncover the lost history of Britain’s global empire of law in colonial conflicts and bureaucratic dispatches rather than legal treatises and case law. Tracing constitutional politics around the world, Rage for Order shows that attempts to refashion the British imperial constitution touched on all the controversial issues of the day, from slavery to revolution. Scandals in turbulent colonies targeted petty despots and augmented the power of the Crown to intervene in the administration of justice. Campaigns to police piracy and slave trading linked British interests to the stability of politically fragmented regions. Dull bureaucrats dominated legal reform, but they did not act in isolation. Indigenous peoples, slaves, convicts, merchants, and sailors all scrambled to play a part in reordering the empire and the world beyond it. Yet, through it all, legal reform focused on promoting order, not advancing human rights or charting liberalism.
Rage for Order maps a formative phase in world history when imperial, not international, law anchored visions of global order. This sweeping story changes the way we think about the legacy of the British Empire and the meaning of international law today.
Soon after World War II states convened in Switzerland, home of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to adopt the four treaties that today form the core of international humanitarian law. These Geneva Conventions of 1949, coupled with three later-adopted Additional Protocols, aim to regulate the conduct of armed conflict – in particular, to protect from harm civilians and other persons who are not taking part in the conflict.
Under the editorship of noted jurist Jean Pictet, the ICRC published commentaries elaborating on these texts: from 1952 to 1960, commentaries on the Geneva Conventions, and in 1987, commentaries on the first two Additional Protocols. They remain a resource for political leaders and policymakers, lawyers, professors, and judges, and, not least, practitioners of armed conflict. When the passage of time made clear the need to revisit these commentaries, the ICRC began updating the documents under the leadership of Dr. Jean-Marie Henckaerts, ICRC Legal Adviser and an alumnus of the University of Georgia School of Law. The first product of this effort – the 2016 Commentary on Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field – is now online, and soon will appear in print.
In recognition of this milestone, the Georgia Law community will host a day-long conference on the 2016 Commentary and its role in the development, promotion, and implementation of contemporary international humanitarian law. The conference will begin with a public plenary, featuring a keynote address by Dr. Henckaerts as well as a panel of experts who will discuss cutting-edge questions about the waging of war. During afternoon closed sessions, these and other experts will continue this conversation, and also examine issues posed by the ongoing drafting of additional commentary updates.
- Gregory Rose & Bruce Oswald, Introduction
- Emily Crawford, Convergence of Norms across the Spectrum of Armed Conflicts: International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law
- Sarah McCosker, The Limitations of Legal Reasoning: Negotiating the Relationships between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in Detention Situations
- Jody Prescott, The Convergence of Violence around a Norm: Direct Participation in Hostilities and Its Significance for Detention Standards in Non-International Armed Conflict
- Chris Jenks, Reimagining the Wheel: Detention and Release of Non-State Actors under the Geneva Conventions
- Angeline Lewis, The Coalition Provisional Authority for Iraq 2004-2008: Transitioning From Administrative Internment to Criminal Justice Based Detention Operations
- Paul Cronan, Australian Detention Operations in Afghanistan: Practices and Challenges
- Linda Dann, Detention in British International Military Operations
- B.V. Kumar, An Indian Perspective on Detention of Non-State Actors Engaged in Hostilities
- Dvir Saar & Ben Wahlhaus, Preventive Detention for National Security Purposes: The Three Facets of the Israeli Experience
- Bill Lietzau, U.S. Detention of Terrorists in the 21st Century
- Mark Dakers, NATO Responsibility for Detention
- Bruce Oswald, Information and Notification concerning Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts
- Thomas Winkler, Copenhagen Process Principles and Guidelines for Detention - Legal and Political Challenges
- Katarina Grenfell, Detention in United Nations Peace Operations
- Gregory Rose, Detention of Non-State Actors Engaged in Hostilities – Recommendations for Future Law
International refugee law anticipates state conduct in relation to nationality, statelessness, and protection. Refugee status under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and regional and domestic instruments referring to it can be fully understood only against the background of international laws regarding nationality, statelessness, and the consequences of national status or the lack of it. In this significant addition to the literature a leading practitioner in these fields examines, in the light of international law, key issues regarding refugee status including identification of 'the country of his nationality', concepts of 'effective nationality', and the inclusion within 'persecution' of a range of acts or omissions focused on nationality.
- Holger Hestermeyer, How Brexit Will Happen: A Brief Primer on European Union Law and Constitutional Law Questions Raised by Brexit
- Michael McIlwrath, An Unamicable Separation: Brexit Consequences for London as a Premier Seat of International Dispute Resolution in Europe
- Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab, Brexit’s Chilling Effect on Choice of Law and Arbitration in the United Kingdom: Practical Reflections Between Aggravation and Alleviation
- Sara Masters & Belinda McRae, What Does Brexit Mean for the Brussels Regime?'
- Kate Davies, Valeriya Kirsey, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Support of London Seated Arbitrations Post-Brexit: Are All Things New Just Well-Forgotten Past?
- Richard Kreindler, Paul Gilbert, Ricardo Zimbron, Impact of Brexit on UK Competition Litigation and Arbitration
- Annet van Hooft, Brexit and the Future of Intellectual Property Litigation and Arbitration
- Markus Burgstaller & Agnieszka Zarowna, Possible Ramifications of the UK’s EU Referendum on Intra- and Extra-EU BITs
This book examines the responsibility of States and international organizations for complicity (aid or assistance) in an internationally wrongful act. Despite the recognition of responsibility for complicity as a rule of customary international law by the International Court of Justice, this book argues that the effectiveness and utility of this form of responsibility is fraught with systemic and operational limits. These limits include a lack of clarity in its constituent elements, its co-existence with primary rules prohibiting complicity and the obligations of due diligence, its implementation and the underlying causal tests, its uncertain relationship to other forms of shared and indirect responsibility, and its potential as a form of attribution of conduct. This book submits that the content and elements of this form of responsibility need adjustments to respond more effectively to the phenomenon of complicity in international affairs.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
- September 22, 2016: Jutta Brunnée (Univ. of Toronto), International Law and the Practice of Legality: Stability and Change
- October 19, 2016: Ralph Wilde (Univ. College London), Dilemmas in Promoting Global Economic Justice through Human Rights Law
- November 17, 2016: Mamadou Hébié (Leiden Univ.), Government Lawyering in International Law and International Relations
- December 14, 2016: Andrew Lang (London School of Economics), Sociological Approaches to International Legal Scholarship
Asmelash: The G7's Pledge to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies by 2025: Mere Rhetoric or a Sign of Post-Paris Momentum?
- The Approaches of Liberal and Illiberal Governments to International Law
- Jose E. Alvarez, Foreword: Fifty Shades of Gray
- Bill Bowring, Did the States Which Founded the UN Have Liberal or Illiberal Governments?
- Maria Varaki, The Second Part of the Ideal Theory of John Rawls in The Law of Peoples Transplanted and Revisited
- Oleksandr Merezhko, Ideology of Liberalism and International Law
- John D. Haskell, Will the Real Transitology Please Stand Up?
- Anna Dolidze, The Non-Native Speakers of International Law: The Case of Russia
- Isobel Roele, From Illiberal to Incorrigible: A New Strategy for Humanitarian Enforcement Action in Syria
- Charlotte Steinorth, Russia, the Security Council, and the Return of History
- Kerttu Mager, Russia’s Illiberal Ideology and Its Influences on the Legislation in the Sphere of Civil and Political Rights
- Gleb Bogush, Russia and International Criminal Law
- Leonid Tymchenko, International Legal Norms in the System of the Ukrainian Constitution
- Phil C.W. Chan, A Critique of Western Discourses of International Law and State Sovereignty through Chinese Lenses
- Wim Muller, China: an Illiberal, Non-Western State in a Western-centric, Liberal Order?
- Vladislav Mulyun, Liberalism in International Trade, Illiberalism in Domestic Economic Governance and Human Rights Protection in the Context of the WTO
- Veronika Bilkova, Symbols of Illiberalism in the World of Liberal States
- Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias & Anna Śledzińska-Simon, Value Pluralism without the Value of Pluralism? “Homosexual Propaganda” Bans as a Litmus Test for the Acceptance of Liberal and International Human Rights Norms in the Post-Communist States Jernej Letnar Černič, A Glass Half Empty? Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Central and Eastern Europe
- Laura-Maria Crăciunean, “Transplanting” Democracy and Human Rights in a Post-communist Country: Some Comments on the Role of the Venice Commission’s Opinions with Respect to Romania
- Gerry Simpson, The End of the End of History: Some Epitaphs for Liberalism
Monday, September 19, 2016
The creation of marine protected areas (“MPAs”) has for decades been an important mechanism for the conservation of offshore habitats and biodiversity. In recent years, huge swathes of ocean have been designated for protection as states announced successively larger MPAs. Where maritime territory is disputed, the unilateral declaration of MPAs can arouse suspicions that states have harnessed conservation as a continuation of geopolitics by other means. This paper identifies the combustible interplay between conservation and territorial and strategic competition, with particular reference to, first, the recent arbitration concerning the United Kingdom’s Chagos Archipelago MPA under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and, second, ongoing maritime territorial disputes in the Indo-Pacific region. The paper discusses what happens when states are accused of creating MPAs to serve a hidden agenda. The relationship of marine conservation with territorial competition emerges as a complex one, in which power differentials and strategic conditions are important determinants of state behavior. Moreover, the hard choices inherent in this area of policy will be exacerbated by climate change. The developments discussed in the paper challenge unilateral MPAs as a means of protecting marine ecosystems. As a response, the paper identifies the objective of reducing incentives for states to play geopolitics with conservation.
In Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) said: 'A treaty only creates law as between the States which are parties to it; in case of doubt, no rights can be deduced from it in favour of third States'. This is the classic statement of the privity, pacta tertiis or parties-only principle in international law. Accordingly, treaties create (enforceable) obligations and rights only for the States parties to them. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) codified the privity principle in its Articles 34, 35, 36 and 37.
As this chapter shows, the PCIJ's axiomatic statement in Certain German Interests almost eighty years ago no longer fully reflects the effect of treaties on third parties in contemporary international law. Since then, the principle of privity of treaty has lost some its sharp edges. The rise of erga omnes obligations and objective, status-creating treaties, the conferral of rights on non-State actors and their ability to directly enforce such rights as well as the turn towards informal international law beyond the law of treaties have tempered the traditional privity rule. However, it would be premature to sound the death knell of privity of treaty. Privity remains an important structural characteristic on the inter-State plane.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
The Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri School of Law and the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Dispute Resolution and Midwest Interest Groups are pleased to announce a works-in-progress conference.
The works-in-progress conference will take place on February 2 and 3, 2017, at the University of Missouri School of Law. The purpose of the conference is to help authors develop draft articles for publication, so authors will be required to submit a working draft before the conference takes place. Papers will be circulated in advance of the session, and all participants will be expected to provide detailed feedback on a limited number of other papers.
The works-in-progress conference will also feature various networking opportunities as well as several substantive presentations on issues relating to international dispute resolution. Presentations will be live or by video and include:
- Lady Justice Joyce Aluoch, Judge and First Vice-President of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, who will be speaking on matters of public international law
- Ryan Reetz and Pedro Martinez-Fraga of Bryan Cave, who will be speaking on their recent book, Public Purpose in International Law: Rethinking Regulatory Sovereignty in the Global Era (Cambridge University Press 2015)
- Paul-Jean Le Cannu, Legal Counsel at ICSID, who will speak on the future of investor-state dispute settlement systems
Papers presented at the works-in-progress conference will be eligible for expedited review by the University of Missouri’s highly regarded Journal of Dispute Resolution as well as for consideration by the ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal. While submissions will have to go through the normal publication process and an offer of publication is not guaranteed, the editors of both journals are very interested in reviewing submissions from works-in-progress participants.
This is expected to be a very international event, and submissions are sought from academics and practitioners around the world. Junior professionals, including aspiring and untenured academics, are encouraged to submit proposals. Details on how to submit a proposal for the works-in-progress conference can be found here.
- Harald Sippel & Marieke Minkkinen, The New KCAB Rules
- Christopher Boog & Julie Raneda, The 2016 SIAC Rules: A State-of-the-Art Rules Revision Ensuring an even more Efficient Process
- Tarkan Göksu, Schiedsgerichtlicher Instanzenzug – Welches Verfahren bei Rechtsmitteln an ein Oberschiedsgericht?
- Christian Alexander Meyer, Agency and Distribution Contracts, Choice of Law and Arbitration in Europe
Annual Comparative Law Work-in-Progress Workshop
April 28-29, 2017
UCLA School of Law
Announcement and Call for Papers
Organized by Máximo Langer (University of California at Los Angeles), Jacqueline Ross (University of Illinois College of Law), and Kim Lane Scheppele (Princeton University)
Co-sponsored by the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Illinois College of Law, Princeton University, and the American Society of Comparative Law
We invite all interested comparative law scholars to consider submitting a paper to the next annual Comparative Law Work-in-Progress Workshop, which will be held on Friday and Saturday, April 28 and 29, 2017, at UCLA School of Law. We will accept up to seven papers for workshop discussion, and we plan to select a mix of both junior and senior scholars.
Interested authors should submit papers to Máximo Langer at UCLA School of Law email@example.com by February 1, 2017. We will inform authors of our decision by March 1, 2017. Participants whose papers have been accepted should plan to arrive in Los Angeles, California by Thursday night on April 27, 2017, and to leave on Saturday April 29, 2017 in the late afternoon/evening.
The annual workshop continues to be an important forum in which comparative law work in progress can be explored among colleagues in a serious and thorough manner that will be truly helpful to the respective authors. "Work in progress" means scholarship that has reached a stage at which it is substantial enough to merit serious discussion and critique but that has not yet appeared in print (and can still be revised after the workshop, if it has already been accepted for publication.) It includes law review articles, book chapters or outlines, substantial book reviews, and other appropriate genres.
We ask for only one contribution per author and also ask authors to limit their papers to 50 pages in length, or, if the paper (or book chapter) is longer, to indicate which 50 pages they would like to have read and discussed.
Our objective is not only to provide an opportunity for the discussion of scholarly work but also to create the opportunity for comparative lawyers to get together for two days devoted to nothing but talking shop, both in the sessions and outside. We hope that this will create synergy that fosters more dialogue, cooperation, and an increased sense of coherence for the discipline.
The participants in the workshop will consist of the respective authors, commentators, and faculty members of the host institutions. The overall group will be kept small enough to sit around a large table and to allow serious discussion. The papers will not be presented at the workshop. They will be distributed well in advance and every participant must have read them before attending the meeting. Each paper will be introduced and discussed first by two commentators before opening the discussion to the other workshop participants. Each of the authors selected for the workshop is expected to have read and to be prepared to discuss each of the papers selected. The author of each paper will be given an opportunity to respond and ask questions of his or her own. There are no plans to publish the papers. Instead, it is up to the authors to seek publication if, and wherever, they wish. The goal of the workshop is to improve the work before publication.
The Workshop will be funded by the host school and by the American Society of Comparative Law. Authors of papers and commentators will be reimbursed for their travel expenses and accommodation up to $600, by either by the American Society of Comparative Law or UCLA School of Law, in accordance with the ASCL reimbursement policy (as posted on its webpage.) We ask that authors inquire into funding opportunities at their home institutions before applying for reimbursement by the ASCL or by UCLA School of Law.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
- Alexander E. Kentikelenis, Thomas H. Stubbs & Lawrence P. King, IMF conditionality and development policy space, 1985–2014
- Iain Hardie & Sylvia Maxfield, Atlas constrained: the US external balance sheet and international monetary power
- Adam S. Chilton, The political motivations of the United States’ bilateral investment treaty program
- Stephen B. Kaplan, Banking unconditionally: the political economy of Chinese finance in Latin America
- Mary Anne Madeira, New trade, new politics: intra-industry trade and domestic political coalitions
Friday, September 16, 2016
- Symposium: All Emperors? On the Constituent Power of Unbound Constitutionalism
- Antje Wiener & Stefan Oeter, Introduction: Who recognizes the emperor’s clothes anymore?
- Markus Patberg, Against democratic intergovernmentalism: The case for a theory of constituent power in the global realm
- Nele Noesselt, Contested global order(s): Rising powers and the re-legitimation of global constitutionalization
- Nico Krisch, Pouvoir constituant and pouvoir irritant in the postnational order
- Hauke Brunkhorst, Constituent power and constitutionalization in Europe
- Mattias Kumm, Constituent power, cosmopolitan constitutionalism, and post-positivist law
Although Scandinavians are often celebrated as the vanguards of human rights and international law, we know little about whether courts and judges in these countries have embraced those international courts and conventions that they themselves helped establish after the Second World War. This article presents original and comprehensive data on three Scandinavian courts’ citation practice. It demonstrates that not only do Scandinavian Supreme Courts engage surprisingly little with international law, but also that there is great variation in the degree to which they have domesticated international law and courts by citing their case law. Building on this author’s previous research, it is argued that Norway sticks out as much more engaged internationally due to a solid judicial review tradition at the national level. It is also argued that Scandinavian legal positivism, has influenced a much more reticent approach to international case law than would normally be expected from this region in the world.