The University of Turin is offering a very good opportunity for researchers of international and EU law at an early stage of their professional career through the Train2Move Initiative. The Initiative is a mobility fellowship programme addressed to incoming post-doc researcher. All nationalities are eligible, however candidates must NOT have been active in research activities in Italy for more than 12 months in the 3 years prior to the application deadline. Further information on who can apply and the application package are available on this website.
Anna Viterbo and Francesco Costamagna participate to the Initiative together with their Department (the Department of Law) by proposing one of the research topics within the Panel "Socio-Economic Sciences" (see here). In particular the proposed research area is "The European Economic Governance after the Crisis".
The Programme offers a 2-years fellowship at the best employment conditions available according to the current Italian Law on Research and Education and it also aims at strengthening the development of T2M fellows’ curricula by adding on complementary competences through a unique course on soft skills. Furthermore, this would give the opportunity to the selected fellows to live in Turin, a city bursting with life and with a very lively cultural offer. The application deadline is the 5th of May 2015 (5 pm GMT+1).
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Call for Applications: Post-Doctoral Researchers on "The European Economic Governance after the Crisis"
- Kenneth W. Abbott, Philipp Genschel, Duncan Snidal & Bernhard Zangl, Orchestration: global governance through intermediaries
- Michael Blauberger & Berthold Rittberger, Orchestrating policy implementation: EU governance through regulatory networks
- Manfred Elsig, Orchestration on a tight leash: state oversight of the WTO
- Lora Anne Viola, Orchestration by design: the G20 in international financial regulation
- Erin R. Graham & Alexander Thompson, Efficient orchestration? The Global Environment Facility in the governance of climate adaptation
- Xinyuan Dai, Orchestrating monitoring: the optimal adaptation of international organizations
- Jonas Tallberg, Orchestrating enforcement: international organizations mobilizing compliance constituencies
- Tine Hanrieder, WHO orchestrates? Coping with competitors in global health
- Virginia Haufler, Orchestrating peace? Civil war, conflict minerals, and the United Nations Security Council
- Cornis van der Lugt & Klaus Dingwerth, Governing where focality is low: UNEP and the Principles for Responsible Investment
- Lucio Baccaro, Orchestration for the 'social partners' only: internal constraints on the ILO
- Michael Findley, Daniel Nielson & J.C. Sharman, Orchestrating the fight against anonymous incorporation: a field experiment
- Walter Mattli & Jack Seddon, Orchestration along the Pareto frontier: winners and losers
- Kenneth W. Abbott, Philipp Genschel, Duncan Snidal & Bernhard Zangl, Orchestrating global governance: from empirical findings to theoretical implications
Friday, March 13, 2015
Jede Herrschaftsordnung bedarf der Legitimation. Das Werk befasst sich mit der Legitimation derjenigen Instrumente internationaler Institutionen, die nicht zum verbindlichen Völkerrecht gehören, deren Anzahl und Bedeutung mit der Globalisierung massiv angestiegen sind. Dazu zählen das Soft Law, aber auch Informationsakte wie Indikatoren oder Indizes. Legitimationsbedürftig, so die These, sind neben dem verbindlichen Völkerrecht alle Akte, die als „internationale öffentliche Gewalt“ einzustufen sind. Dieser Begriff wird auf Grundlage der Diskurstheorie von Jürgen Habermas konzipiert, die dazu in einigen Punkten fortzuentwickeln ist. Das Werk entwirft sodann eine Handlungsformenlehre, mit der sich der abstrakte Begriff der internationalen öffentlichen Gewalt auf vergleichbare Instrumentenkategorien herunterbrechen lässt, die durch ein einheitliches Rechtsregime legitimiert werden können. Am Beispiel der PISA-Studie demonstriert es, wie diese sich durch Konzeption einer Handlungsform „staatliche Politikbewertung“ rechtlich einhegen lässt.
Much has been written in recent years about cyberspace as a new domain for warfare. The magnitude of the threats cannot be underestimated. Cyber attacks can disable whole countries (e.g., Estonia) as well as companies (e.g., Sony) and cyber-security incidents in sectors such as communications, finance, transportation and utilities can have catastrophic consequences.
The discussion to date has tended to focus on two common conceptions. First, regardless of the failure to arrive at widely accepted definitions of terms such as cyber “crime,” cyber “espionage,” cyber “attacks” and cyber “warfare,” they have mostly been regarded as willfully perpetrated, pre-meditated and intentional. Second, existing literature (certainly legal literature) has focused exclusively on the legal obligations of, and possible sanctions against, states and non-state actors that orchestrated cyber attacks.
In this article I offer radically different perspectives on both counts. First, the article recognizes that the harm to both computer networks and physical systems interconnected with them may be as catastrophic when the source of damage is not intentional but rather the result of human error or conventional threats. Second, I offer the first exploration and analysis of possible obligations that may be imposed not on the state (or non-state actor) that originated the attack, but rather on the directly affected state, i.e., the state that is the target of the attack or the cyber incident. I argue that imposing legal and technological responsibilities on the state that has been exposed to a cyber incident is warranted both as a matter of conceptualizing state sovereignty and due to the state’s various obligations to other states and the global community.
Thus, the article canvasses the possible bases for, and scope of, responsibilities that may be borne by states that are directly affected by cyber-security incidents before, during and after a cyber-security incident materializes.
The Concept of the Civilian: Legal Recognition, Adjudication and the Trials of International Criminal Justice offers a critical account of the legal shaping of civilian identities by the processes of international criminal justice. It draws on a detailed case-study of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to explore two key issues central to these justice processes: first, how to understand civilians as a social and legal category of persons and second, how legal practices shape victims’ identities and redress in relation to these persons.
Integrating socio-legal concepts and methodologies with insights from transitional justice scholarship, Claire Garbett traces the historical emergence of the concept of the civilian, and critically examines how the different stages of legal proceedings produce its conceptual form in distinction from that of combatants. This book shows that the very notions of civilian, protection and redress that underpin current practices of international criminal justice continue to evoke both definitional difficulties and analytic contestation.
AJIL Unbound, the online-only publication and forum of the American Journal of International Law, which features scholarship and commentary from pre-eminent scholars on developments in international law and international relations, invites submissions for a symposium on Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL).
Third World Approaches to International Law constitute a distinctive voice in international law. These approaches have emphasized the centrality of colonialism and imperialism to the field. TWAIL has challenged the manner in which first world scholarship monopolized the production of knowledge about international law and, in so doing, has brought to the fore questions of race, culture, power relations, and class.
While some TWAIL approaches have critically evaluated the continuities of colonialism and imperialism in post-cold war neo-liberal policies through a variety of lenses including Marxism, others have emphasized international law’s philosophic and theoretical features including its contingency, particularism, and indeterminacy. TWAIL scholars acknowledge that they are engaged in simultaneously critiquing and exposing the limits and the biases, blind spots and unanticipated bad consequences of international law, on the one hand, and embracing possibilities embodied in the guarantees of individual rights and self-determination, on the other.
For these and other reasons, TWAIL has been criticized for relying on the same underlying assumptions as the system it sought to transcend, for under-emphasizing the continuing marginalization of many women and of indigenous peoples, and for offering no positive agenda for the reform or transformation of international law.
AJIL Unbound invites essays of no more than 3000 words reflecting on Third World Approaches to International Law along the foregoing non-exhaustive list of themes. Essays should be lightly footnoted. Because AJIL Unbound essays will be available in both PDF and HTML formats, authors should provide both Bluebook citations and hyperlinks to all references. Submissions will be selected for publication through a peer-review process comprised of American Journal of International Law Board of Editors members, including the Co-editors in Chief and AJIL Unbound Committee members. This symposium is convened by Journal Board members Christine Chinkin, Henry Richardson, and James Gathii.
- Bruno de Witte & Valentina Vadi, Introducing Culture and International Economic Law
- Francesco Francioni, Culture, Human Rights and International Law
- Yvonne Donders, The Cultural Dimension of Economic Activities in International Human Rights Jurisprudence
- Valentina Vadi, Cultural Heritage in International Economic Law
- Federico Lenzerini, Investment Projects Affecting Indigenous Heritage
- Sarah Sargent, What's in Name? The Contested Meaning of Free, Priort and Informed Consent in International Financial Law and Indigenous Rights
- Mira Burri Nenova, The Trade v. Culture Discourse: Tracing its Evolution in Global Law
- Ana Vrdoljak, International Exchange and Trade in Cultural Objects
- Antonietta Di Blase, Traditional Knowledge: Cultural Heritage or Intellectual Property?
- Lucas Linxinski & Louise Buckingham, Propertization, Safegaurding and the Cultural Commons: The Turf Wars of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Traditional Cultural Expressions
- Lucky Belder, Copyright and the Digitization of Cultural Heritage on the EU Digital Agenda
- Bruno de Witte, Market Integration and Cultural Diversity in EU Law
- Rachel Craufurd Smith, EU Media Law: Cultural Policy or Business as Usual?
- Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, Culture in the EU's External Economic Relations
Thursday, March 12, 2015
International Law Weekend 2015: Call for Panel Proposals
Deadline: March 20, 2015
In anticipation of International Law Weekend 2015 (ILW 2015) – the premier international law event of the fall season – the sponsors would like to invite you and your colleagues to submit proposals for panels, roundtables, and lectures. ILW 2015 is scheduled to be held on November 5-7, 2015, in New York City.
ILW is sponsored and organized by the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) – which welcomes new members from academia, the practicing bar, and the diplomatic world – and the International Law Students Association (ILSA). This annual conference attracts an audience of more than eight hundred academics, diplomats, members of the governmental and nongovernmental sectors, and foreign policy and law students.
Call for Proposals
The unifying theme for ILW 2015 is Global Problems, Legal Solutions: Challenges for Contemporary International Lawyers.
ILW 2015 will explore the many roles that international law plays in addressing global challenges. The aim is to provide an opportunity for discussion and debate about the ways in which international law provides fundamental tools and mechanisms to address emerging global issues. ILW 2015 will offer engaging panels on current problems and innovative solutions in both public and private international law.
The ILW Organizing Committee invites proposals to be submitted online on or before Friday, March 20, 2015 via the ILW Panel Proposal Submission Form located here.
Panel proposals may concern any aspect of contemporary international law and practice including, but not limited to, international arbitration, international environmental law, national security, cyber law, use of force, human rights and humanitarian law, international organizations, international criminal law, international intellectual property, the law of the sea and outer space, and transnational commercial and trade law. When submitting your proposal, please identify the primary area(s) of international law that your proposed panel will address.
We also ask that you provide a brief description of the topic, and the names, titles, and affiliations of the chair and likely speakers. One of the objectives of ILW 2015 is to promote new dialogues among scholars and practicing lawyers; so all panels should include presenters with diverse experiences and perspectives.
On the submission form, you will be asked to describe what you think would be the most engaging and exciting format for your proposed program. We encourage suggestions of varied formats, such as debates, roundtables, lectures, and break-out groups, as well as the usual practice of panel presentations. Additionally, we encourage you to consider taking the necessary steps to qualify your panel for CLE credit. We hope to offer at least seven panels qualifying for CLE.
ILW 2015 is scheduled to be held at 42 West 44th Street on Thursday evening, November 5, and at Fordham Law School at Lincoln Center on November 6-7, 2015. The ABILA Annual meeting will also be held during ILW 2015 at the same location. For questions regarding ILW 2015, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
ILW Programming Committee
Chiara Giorgetti, Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty Director, LLM Program, Richmond School of Law;
Jeremy Sharpe, Chief of Investment Arbitration, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State;
David P. Stewart, President, ABILA, Georgetown University Law Center;
Santiago Villalpando, Acting Chief, Treaty Section, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations;
Tessa Walker, Programs Director, ILSA.
Call for Contributions: International Law’s Objects: Emergence, Encounter and Erasure through Object and Image
CALL FOR PAPERS
International Law’s Objects:
Emergence, Encounter and Erasure through Object and Image
Dr. Jessie Hohmann and Dr. Daniel Joyce, the editors, invite proposals for contributions to an edited book on International Law’s Objects: Emergence, Encounter and Erasure through Object and Image.
AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
The study of international law is highly text based. Whether as practice, scholarship or pedagogy, the discipline of international law both relies on and produces a wealth of written material. Cases, treaties, and volumes of academic writing are the legal sources through which most of us working in international law relate to the subject, and, at times we might come to feel that these texts are our major project and output. Yet international law has a rich existence in the world. International law is often developed, conveyed and authorised through objects or images. From the symbolic (the regalia of the head of state and the symbols of sovereignty), to the mundane (a can of dolphin-safe tuna certified as complying with international trade standards), international legal authority can be found in the objects around us. Similarly, the practice of international law often relies on material objects or images, both as evidence (satellite images, bones of the victims of mass atrocities) and to found authority (for instance, maps and charts).
Motivating this project are three questions:
- First, what might studying international law through objects reveal? What might objects, rather than texts, tell us about sources, recognition of states, construction of territory, law of the sea, or international human rights law?
- Second, what might this scholarly undertaking reveal about the objects – as aims or projects – of international law? How do objects reveal, or perhaps mask, these aims, and what does this tell us about the reasons some (physical or material) objects are foregrounded, and others hidden or ignored?
- Third, which objects will be selected? We anticipate a no doubt eclectic but illuminating collection, which points to objects made central, but also objects disclaimed, by international law. Moreover, the project will result in a fascinating artefact (itself an object) of the preoccupations of the profession at this moment in time.
There are various ways one might begin to think about international law through objects. These categories are offered provisionally, and are in no sense intended to constrain the imagination of contributors:
- The first is those objects which are used routinely in the study and practice of international law. These include treaties and diplomatic cables for instance. These are normally rendered in text but represent important objects of interest in their own right. An extension of this category, also routinely used in international law scholarship and practice, are maps.
- A second category might be those ritual objects that seek to convey the power and authority of international law though their symbolic weight. Such objects might include, for example, the flag planted by Captain Cook to claim the territory now known as Australia, the gavel used in the Nuremberg trials, or the Hague Peace Palace itself.
- A third category of objects are those that convey the way international law operates over individuals. For example, consumer goods marked to demonstrate compliance with international standards illustrate complex issues of trade regulation and our experience of it, while a relocation village built to accommodate ‘project affected peoples’ illuminates another aspect of global development. Meanwhile, a landmine is a way of interrogating international humanitarian law, a skull from a mass grave a way of considering the international crime of genocide. An image of the border fence between the US and Mexico might illustrate contemporary manifestations of territory.
- A fourth category could investigate those objects ‘written out’ of international law. For example, these objects might include the regalia of sovereignty of peoples denied that sovereignty by international law, such as the two-row Wampum belts of native communities in North America. This category is perhaps the most difficult to predict by an international lawyer trained to see objects inside the borders of our understandings of the law, and it expected that those contributing will bring to light objects not anticipated by the editors themselves.
In each instance, the object or image invites us to consider international law from a different angle. In each, it brings to light not only the object itself, which in many instances will be fascinating in its own right, but what that object ‘says’ about international law and its processes, history, and development. In addition, the object tells us something about the author and his or her approach to international law.
The result will be an edited volume composed of images of ‘international law’s objects’, with accompanying text explaining and illuminating the relevance and importance of the object to the development, impact, status or authority of international law.
The forty best contributions will be selected for publication in the edited volume, and other excellent contributions will also be considered for inclusion in a digital archive to accompany the volume.
Accordingly, we invite you to select one image or object, which in your view best represents your area of expertise within international law, or international law as a whole, and to write about its significance in international law. We also invite scholars from other disciplines to bring their perspectives to bear on international law’s objects.
Contributions should be short – 3000 to 4000 words – and will be set alongside photographs of the selected image or object. The contributions should be written for a non-specialist audience so the volume can be enjoyed across disciplines, and as a teaching tool for students at all levels. Contributions should be lightly footnoted. We anticipate contributors will be able to speak meaningfully about their objects without being unduly technical.
TIMELINE AND SPECIFICS
Proposals for chapters should be kept to a maximum of 700 words, keeping in mind the final contributions are to be no more than 4000 words.
Proposals should be submitted, by email, to email@example.com
The call for papers closes Friday April 18th 2015.
Successful authors will be notified by end of July 2015.
We would expect full draft contributions to be ready for circulation to contributors by December 2015, for discussion at a workshop hosted at Queen Mary, University of London, in April 2016 (with a workshop date to be confirmed shortly).
Dr. Jessie Hohmann, Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary, University of London
Dr. Daniel Joyce, Lecturer in Law, University of New South Wales
Which dispute settlement mechanisms are available in the area of space communication? Their choice is clearly determined by the legal character of those who are parties in the dispute - States, international intergovernmental organizations, private entities or even individuals. In the perspective of the very subject of the study, the analysis of various dispute settlement mechanisms demonstrated that not all existing mechanisms are equally capable to serve its purpose. It appeared that the parties of a dispute very often prefer searching for a consensus and an arbitration procedure in case of disagreement prior to international adjudication. The cases where formalized international courts are involved in this area have been relatively rare: This situation brings some of space communication disputes close to the area of investment disputes: high costs of investment, its international character, the necessity to keep working relations with the opposing party of the dispute after the conclusion of the dispute, difficult technical background of the case, little trust in court procedures, low indemnification and the fear of non-implementation of court decisions are the decisive factors of these similarities. As a consequence, it can be expected that mediation, negotiation and arbitration, but also alternative dispute settlements mechanism will remain the main mechanisms of dispute settlement in the area of space communication in the near future. With contributions by: Mahulena Hofmann; Srinivasan Venkatsubramanian; Francis Lyall; Gerald E. Oberst; Tanja Masson-Zwaan; Peter Malanczuk; Frans von der Dunk; Ioanna Thoma; Susan Poser and Joel Rische; Andreas Loukakis.
- Raymond Geuss, Realism and the relativity of judgement
- Jens Steffek, The cosmopolitanism of David Mitrany: Equality, devolution and functional democracy beyond the state
- Carla Monteleone, Coalition building in the UN Security Council
- Amy Skonieczny, Playing partners: Expectation, entanglement, and language games in US foreign policy
- Forum: What kind of theory – if any – is securitization?
- Thierry Balzacq & Stefano Guzzini, Introduction: ‘What kind of theory – if any – is securitization?’
- Thierry Balzacq, The ‘Essence’ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security
- Michael C Williams, Securitization as political theory: The politics of the extraordinary
- Ole Wæver, The theory act: Responsibility and exactitude as seen from securitization
- Heikki Patomäki, Absenting the absence of future dangers and structural transformations in securitization theory
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
TDM Call for papers: Special Issue on Latin America
Since the beginning of the 21st century, Latin America has sought the proper response to international disputes. That effort has been complicated by the opportunities and realities of globalization and its relation to its effects on local economies and government policy. While new export markets have driven growth in certain sectors, the desire to utilize local resources for internal development has presented significant challenges, both economic and political. We invite submissions for a TDM Special Issue on Latin America that seeks to dive in to these issues and the tension resulting from them, both from a theoretical and practical perspective. The topics to be discussed include the following.
Disputes Involving States and State Parties.
Along with East Europe, Latin America has been the region that has experienced the most arbitrations involving a State or a State entities. Claimants have challenged State measures including upfront expropriations or mere State regulatory decisions in different industries spanning from the financial sector (Abaclat v. Argentina) to trade transactions (Cargill v. Mexico). We seek contributions discussing the impact of these arbitrations in the region considering, among others, the effect on the political mood, Sovereign decisions, State´s treaty practice or the overall consequences on the use of arbitration as a dispute resolution system in the region. We would also appreciate receiving contributions counting stock of cases by country or regionally with an analysis of sectors involved and the challenged Sovereign measures.
Control of Local Laws and Courts over International Transactions.
For decades, the major financial centers (New York, London, Paris, Hong Kong) have essentially exported their legal norms through the application of their laws and legal customs to contracts, investments, and dispute resolution methods. Until recently, Latin American countries have done little to change the status quo, increasingly enforcing arbitration clauses calling for dispute resolution outside national boundaries and generally enforcing awards rendered in other jurisdictions. But it appears the tide is changing. Perhaps emblematically, Mexico has embraced reform of the hydrocarbons sector to attract private, foreign investment, but it has also passed legislation making certain administrative actions non-arbitrable. At the same time, there is increasing use of transnational rules, instead of the traditional application of a particular State's law. For example, model contracts and State laws have started citing to best practices as a source of transnational rules. We seek contributions discussing whether such a change is occurring and its impacts, including the limits of the control of local courts and laws, the types of legal teams and strategies necessary to handle these disputes, and the effect on various cities as potential seats of arbitrations and locations for international dispute resolution practices.
Changes in Dispute Resolution Methods.
While certain countries have denounced or rejected the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties, there has not been a whole scale move away from international investment arbitration. International commercial arbitration has grown rapidly in the region at the same time. In reality, sovereigns and their instrumentalities still select arbitration, often arbitrating under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC, the Rules of Arbitration of the ICDR, and other institutions. Sovereigns have also initiated a process of renegotiation of the old investment regime moving into new treaties or free trade agreements with investment chapters. The regional arbitration Center at UNASUR seems also to be moving forward. We seek contributions analyzing the changes that have occurred and discussing the effects these changes will have on important issues, such as transparency, ability to attract foreign capital, and methods of dispute resolution.
Implications of Investment by "Multi-Latinas" and Access to Changing Markets.
After the financial crisis of 2008, corporations based in Latin America have continued to become increasingly assertive on the international stage. We have seen companies, from small to large, expanding outside their borders to the rest of Latin America, Africa, and the United States. At the same time, the United States has dramatically changed its position in relation to Cuba-a policy change that will undoubtedly impact investment in the country for years to come. We seek contributions studying the impacts of these changes, including the application of extraterritorial regulatory regimes (FCPA, UK Anti-Bribery Act, FATCA, embargoes, sanctions, and similar laws), the preference by Multi-Latinas of dispute resolution in local or regional arbitration institutions, and analysis of regulatory and political changes in relation to Cuba.
Regional and National Disputes.
Growth in intra-region trade and investment among Latin American companies has led to proposals for local and regional solutions to international dispute resolution. Those solutions look to local business, legal and political culture, while also incorporating practices from the US, the UK, Western Europe and perhaps China. We seek submissions addressing the rapid development of intra-region international dispute resolutions systems, including successes, failures and realistic assessments of future prospects.
In addition to the specific sub-topics mentioned above, the issue's coordinators are open to considering other relevant issues focusing on the consequences of the competing considerations above, especially from diverse perspectives and fields.
The editors of this Latin American TDM Special Issue are Dr. Ignacio Torterola (Brown Rudnick LLP) and Quinn Smith (Gomm & Smith). Proposals for papers (e.g. abstracts) should be submitted to the editors. Intended publication date: final quarter of 2015.
Dr. Ignacio Torterola
Brown Rudnick LLP
Gomm & Smith
Please address all proposals to both Dr. Ignacio Torterola and Quinn Smith. Please CC firstname.lastname@example.org when submitting your materials.
- Rebecca J. Hamilton, The ICC's Exit Problem
- Jed Odermatt, The EU's Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights: An International Law Perspective
- James G. Stewart, The Turn to Corporate Criminal Liability for International Crimes: Transcending the Alien Tort Statute
The paper examines the potential of customary international law to protect global public goods. In particular, it focuses on the question whether customary law can contribute to the mitigation of climate change. The analysis proceeds in the three steps. First, it will have a closer look at the concept of public goods and common pool resources in economic theory and experimental economics. On this basis, the second section examines the formation of customary international law. The analysis shows that sustaining cooperation in multilateral settings through customary law is difficult. With regard to the mitigation of climate change, it is unlikely that states will coordinate on an equilibrium that will lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The section then examines two further ways of identifying customary international law through moral interpretation and judicial lawmaking. However, the potential of these two avenues to protect global public goods effectively is rather limited. The final section analyzes the protection of global public goods through the initially unilateral extension of authority. One problem of global public goods is that states have shared authority over them. A solution might be to divide authority by extending the jurisdiction of the nation states. I will draw from an example concerning the protection of common pool resources, the protection of fish stocks, and analyze whether this example contains any lessons for the mitigation of climate change.
The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) is a claims reparation program created by the United Nations Security Council in May 1991, after the UN-authorized Allied Coalition Forces' military operations terminated the seven-month invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and liberated Kuwait. The UNCC was established with the objectives to receive and decide claims from individuals, corporations, and governments against Iraq as arising directly from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait; and to pay compensation for such claims.
Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Designing Compensation After Conflict is the first collective work on the UNCC claims program by experts who have contributed to its progress, and who have assisted in paving the way for more informed research on the Commission and its jurisprudence. Given its unprecedented, serious and sustained effort within the international community, the two-decade long operations of the UNCC deserve considerable attention and in-depth analysis especially with respect to its impact on the development and progress of international law in the areas of State responsibility and reparations.
Cette réunion a pour objectif de rapprocher les sociétés savantes nationales et régionales dont le but est la défense et l’étude du droit international, en permettant l’établissement d’un cadre de réflexion autour de leur rôle, des moyens à mettre en œuvre afin de renforcer leur coopération, ainsi que des attentes que peuvent avoir les acteurs de la vie internationale à leur égard.
The purpose of this meeting is to gather scholarly societies whose purpose is to study, protect and promote international law by establishing an appropriate reflection framework on their role and means of action in order to strengthen their cooperation, as well as on expectations of various actors on the international stage.
Provides a detailed analysis of how Russia's understanding of international law has developed Draws on historical, theoretical, and practical perspectives to offer the reader the 'big picture' of Russia's engagement with international law Extensively uses sources and resources in the Russian language, including many which are not easily available to scholars outside of Russia This book addresses a simple question: how do Russians understand international law? Is it the same understanding as in the West or is it in some ways different and if so, why?
It answers these questions by drawing on from three different yet closely interconnected perspectives: history, theory, and recent state practice. The work uses comparative international law as starting point and argues that in order to understand post-Soviet Russia's state and scholarly approaches to international law, one should take into account the history of ideas in Russia. To an extent, Russian understandings of international law differ from what is considered the mainstream in the West.
One specific feature of this book is that it goes inside the language of international law as it is spoken and discussed in post-Soviet Russia, especially the scholarly literature in the Russian language, and relates this literature to the history of international law as discipline in Russia. Recent state practice such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia's record in the UN Security Council, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, prominent cases in investor-state arbitration, and the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union are laid out and discussed in the context of increasingly popular 'civilizational' ideas, the claim that Russia is a unique civilization and therefore not part of the West. The implications of this claim for the future of international law, its universality, and regionalism are discussed.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Job Opening: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Law (Post-Doctoral Research Associate)
Ever since 9/11 the legal classification of transnational conflicts between states and non-state armed groups, such as Al Qaeda, has become a highly debated topic. While repeatedly referred to as the War on Terror, the legal qualification of the conflict between the US and Al Qaeda remains controversial: US military operations in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the use of drones against alleged terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and other states pose the question as to whether this conflict truly qualifies as one single global war.
Similarly, transnational conflicts such as the Colombian operation against a FARC base in Ecuador, Israel’s fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Turkish operations against the PKK in northern Iraq pose difficulties as they transcend individual nations˙ political systems and geographical borders. Whether the law of war (i.e. humanitarian law) is applicable to such conflicts and to what extent human rights law binds the states involved is debated.
This work aims to provide structure to the current debate and analyzes the applicability of both humanitarian law and human rights law. Furthermore, it examines and explores approaches to enhance and develop the existing legal framework, including proposed new legal regimes for transnational conflicts. The author argues against the strict separation of international humanitarian law and human rights law and instead borrows from Colombian authorities’ experience in their struggle with the FARC to develop an alternate solution, combining both legal regimes in an integrated approach.
This conference will bring together academics and practitioners from relevant disciplines such as international law, international relations, political science and marine biology, NGOs, representatives from EU institutions and international organisations to discuss the EU's potential contribution to enhance Arctic governance. A roadmap for increasing the effectiveness of the EU’s action in the Arctic will be drawn at the end of the conference.
- Gerry Simpson, The sentimental life of international law
- Matthew Craven, Between law and history: the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the logic of free trade
- Patrick Macklem, Human rights in international law: three generations or one?
- Jane McAdam, Relocation and resettlement from colonisation to climate change: the perennial solution to ‘danger zones’
- Books etc.
- Sara Dehm, Framing international migration
- Pádraig McAuliffe, Weighing domestic and international impediments to transformative justice in transition
- Proper and improper stuff: an interview with Christine Chinkin
An early framing of ‘global administrative law’ (GAL) provisionally ‘bracket[ed] the question of democracy’ as too ambitious an ideal for global administration. To many, the bracketing of democracy has appeared analytically unpersuasive and normatively dubious. This essay is an initial attempt to open the brackets and bring GAL and democracy into conversation. It addresses two separate observations: first, that democracy currently lacks tools to respond to the globalization and diffusion of political authority; and secondly, that GAL is not presently democratic — it has no room for democratic concerns in its emerging norms. The juxtaposition of democracy and GAL yields insights for the way in which each might contribute to the reimagination of global governance.
Das Rahmenübereinkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten ist das mit Abstand wichtigste völkerrechtliche Instrument im Bereich des Minderheitenschutzes, nicht zuletzt dank eines erfolgreichen Überwachungssystems, bei dem das Ministerkomitee und ein Beratender Ausschuss eng zusammenarbeiten. Unterschiedliche Situationen von Minderheiten in den verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten und die Problematik, dass oft politisch sensible Bereiche betroffen sind, führen dazu, dass seine Bestimmungen verschiedene Interpretationen und Anwendungsmethoden zulassen.
Der neue Handkommentar bietet als erste umfassende deutschsprachige Darstellung eine verlässliche Interpretationsquelle, die den Inhalt der einzelnen Artikel des Rahmenübereinkommens vollständig erfasst und gemeineuropäische Standards entwickelt. Zusätzlich wird die einschlägige Lage in den deutschsprachigen Mitgliedstaaten (Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz) sowie in Italien (mit Schwerpunkt Südtirol) erörtert.
Zugrunde gelegt sind dem die Interpretationen der Staaten, die aus den Staatenberichten ersichtlich sind, bezüglich ihrer Verpflichtungen aus dem Rahmenübereinkommen, zum anderen die Stellungnahmen (opinion) des beratenden Ausschusses und die Resolutionen (resolutions) des Ministerkomitees.
This meeting brings together high-level speakers to examine the European Union's investment treaty making practice in global context. While the EU's ongoing negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment with the United States have grabbed the headlines, little attention in Europe has been given to the similar agreements the EU has already completed with Canada and Singapore. This meeting offers an opportunity to examine the policy driving the EU's international investment policy and to analyse the legal significance of the texts the EU is drafting.
The meeting will feature three panels:
Panel One: The Object and Purpose of Europe's Investment Treaties
What goals are the EU and its treaty partners seeking to achieve through these treaties and does their design seem likely to achieve those goals? What do we know about the relationship between investment treaties, FDI growth and the decision-making of investors? To the extent that the EU is developing an investment policy of its own, how is this being reflected in the ongoing treaty making of the Member States?
Panel Two: Analyzing the Texts - Substantive Protections
Looking at the texts of the EU's draft treaties with Canada, Singapore and the United States, this panel addresses two questions:
1. What do the texts tell us about the direction the EU is taking in its treaty-making practice?
2. What do we know about the meaning and likely application of these texts based upon our knowledge of treaties which they resemble or from which they seem to depart?
Panel Three: Analyzing the Texts - Jurisdiction & Dispute Settlement
This panel will look at key procedural provisions of the EU's draft treaties and ask similar questions to Panel Two: What do the texts tell us about the direction the EU is taking in regard to dispute settlement in its treaties? And what do we know about this approach based upon our knowledge of other treaties which the EU treaties resemble (or from which they seem to depart)?
Monday, March 9, 2015
This innovative book provides a thought-provoking introduction to international humanitarian law (IHL). Robert Kolb explores the field through questions – which are at times challenging and controversial – in order to get to the very essence of the subject and give a fresh perspective. The result is an exposition both of the law as it stands, through its written and unwritten rules, and also of the uncertainties, gaps, controversies and practical problems which have arisen. IHL is revealed as a living tool, an ever-adapting means to an ever-remaining need of protection during times of armed conflict.
This article provides a novel and provocative framework to assess the varied authority of international courts (ICs). We generate practicable metric that assesses de facto IC authority according to a conjunctive standard—the recognition of an obligation to comply with IC rulings, and the engagement in meaningful actions that push toward giving full effect to IC rulings. We then identify five possible types of IC authority — no authority in fact, narrow, intermediate, extensive, and public authority — that correspond to the different audiences for IC rulings. The goal of this metric is to help the contributors to a symposium on ICs assess how contextual factors largely beyond the control of judges affect IC authority. We also identify three analytically distinct categories of contextual factors that influence IC authority: institution-specific context, constituencies, and geopolitics. The final section of the paper considers the relationship of IC authority to IC power. Powerful ICs have intermediate and extensive authority that extends across a broad range of issue areas and types of cases.
Three features of this framework are distinctive. First, we separate IC authority from IC legitimacy, allowing for the possibility that authoritative ICs might lack legitimacy, and legitimate ICs might lack authority as we have defined it. Second, our framework moves beyond a number of prevalent but misguided binaries, such as the idea that ICs either do or do not have authority. Third, we provide a realistic tool to grapple with the complex reality that IC authority can vary by audience, among countries, over time, and across the issue areas within an IC’s jurisdiction.
This book chapter surveys whether and how courts in India apply VCLT rules, particularly Articles 31-33, when they interpret treaties. It looks at both adherence to Vienna rules (either through nominal adherence or through the adoption of corresponding methods), as well as coherence of interpretive principles across different kinds of cases and tribunals. Insofar as India is not a signatory to the VCLT, the use of similar rules can be viewed as either application of customary international law, or the adoption of convenient guidelines. Within India, the VCLT is referred to most frequently in cases involving the interpretation of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), and it is asked whether this constitutes a specialized regime or whether these cases should be taken as an indication of a more general approach.
- Current Events
- Dire Tladi, The Immunity Provision in the AU Amendment Protocol: Separating the (Doctrinal) Wheat from the (Normative) Chaff
- Philippe Flory, International Criminal Justice and Truth Commissions: From Strangers to Partners?
- Magdalena Pacholska, (Il)legality of Killing Peacekeepers: The Crime of Attacking Peacekeepers in the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals
- Symposium: Pursuing Global Justice through International Criminal Law
- Sarah M.H. Nouwen & Wouter G. Werner, Foreword
- Frédéric Mégret, What Sort of Global Justice is ‘International Criminal Justice’?
- Luigi D.A. Corrias & Geoffrey M. Gordon, Judging in the Name of Humanity: International Criminal Tribunals and the Representation of a Global Public
- Sara Kendall, Commodifying Global Justice: Economies of Accountability at the International Criminal Court
- Immi Tallgren, The Voice of the International: Who is Speaking?
- Sarah M.H. Nouwen & Wouter G. Werner, Monopolizing Global Justice: International Criminal Law as Challenge to Human Diversity
- Cases before International Courts and Tribunals
- Emanuele Cimiotta, The First Steps of the Extraordinary African Chambers: A New Mixed Criminal Tribunal?
Ní Aoláin, O'Rourke, & Swaine: Transforming Reparations for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Principles and Practice
The United Nations Secretary-General’s adoption of a Guidance Note on Reparations for Conflict-related Sexual Violence (2014) marks an important supplement to recent normative developments in the area of gender-sensitive reparations. Despite these progressive normative advances, there remain conceptual gaps in the legal and policy framework for reparations addressing conflict-related sexual violence and, consequently, ongoing challenges in the implementation of gender-sensitive reparations, which this Article identifies. Challenges include the exclusion of women from legal remedies due to definitional, operational, and enforcement bias in the creation and implementation of reparation regimes. Moreover, a limited understanding of who can be the victim of sexual harm means that violence against men is often unseen and unaccounted for when states and other international actors conceive and implement reparations. This Article comprehensively reviews international and domestic practices, addressing legal rules, policy debates, and reparations programming for conflict-related sexual violence. In doing so, the analysis mediates the gap between norm and implementation by surveying common approaches and promising innovations in reparations delivery. The Article concludes that a commitment to transformative reparations is critical to gender-sensitive reparations. Transformative reparations address the immediate reparative needs of survivors of sexual harm, while also being fully cognizant of the social and economic barriers to full equality for women in many societies. Thus, transformative reparations go beyond the immediacy of sexual violence, encompassing the equality, justice, and longitudinal needs of those who have experienced sexual harms. To this end, we propose ten practice-based principles to inform future reparations practice in judicial, peacemaking, and programming contexts for conflict-related sexual violence.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Christensen: From Symbolic Surge to Closing Courts: The Transformation of International Criminal Justice and Its Professional Practices
The creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993 began a striking proliferation of international criminal tribunals. Now, however, in the wake of this phase of international institution building that followed from the surge of symbolic support for an emergent legal field, international criminal justice is characterized by closing courts and a declining number of professional positions. Developing a framework inspired by structural sociology, this article will analyze the professional practices of the agents that created this field and are now affected by the closure of the courts. These practices constitute a professional response to larger geopolitical transformations in which international criminal justice is no longer politically in vogue. As the article will show, geopolitical structures alone are not wholly definitive for developments of international law: professional agency is actively reshaping the field of international criminal justice.