- Shannon Brincat, Cosmopolitan recognition: three vignettes
- Alena Drieschova, Peirce’s semeiotics: a methodology for bridging the material–ideational divide in IR scholarship
- Christopher J. Finlay, The concept of violence in international theory: a Double-Intent Account
- Jorge F. Garzón, Multipolarity and the future of economic regionalism
- Scott Hamilton, A genealogy of metatheory in IR: how ‘ontology’ emerged from the inter-paradigm debate
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Attorney-client privilege is often invoked as a defence in international arbitration proceedings however the participants often have very different expectations regarding the applicable privilege standard, as national attorney-client privilege laws vary widely between jurisdictions. This is complicated by the fact that institutional arbitral rules do not include provisions on the scope of attorney-client privilege, nor do they outline the conflict of laws issues determining the applicable national privilege law. The applicable level of privilege is therefore left to the discretion of the arbitral tribunal.
Drawing on interviews with more than thirty leading international arbitration practitioners and extensive academic research, this book is the first of its kind to provide clear guidance to arbitral tribunals regarding the determination of the applicable attorney-client privilege standard. It compares attorney-client privilege in key common and civil law jurisdictions, analyses precedent from previous tribunals, and finally sets out proposed changes to the legal framework governing this area.
With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials.
This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.
Call for papers
THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE SEA
4-5 May 2017
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
The law of the sea governs the repression of criminality at sea only to a limited extent. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), for example, is almost silent on the matter. It does not, for instance, sufficiently address issues such as drug trafficking or migrant smuggling, while its provisions are sometimes out-dated and refer to issues such as the slave trade, piracy and unauthorised broadcasting. Sectoral treaties (such as the Palermo Protocol, the Vienna Convention and SUA Convention) complement the UNCLOS regime as regards the repression of criminality at sea, but they are of a limited scope and insufficient in various respects.
The fundamental question raised by the Conference at hand is as follows: in cases where the law of the sea regime does not offer the necessary legal tools to address criminality at sea, does having recourse to the UN Security Council constitute an effective alternative to the fight against criminality at sea? The aim is to assess whether recourse to the UN Security Council offers possible legal solutions, especially in terms of authorization of interventions for States where the law of the sea does not contain them.
More broadly, the Conference will address issues related to the mutual influence and interplay between UN Security Council practice and the law of the sea. To this end, contributions on the UN Security Council’s practice (such as in the nuclear field, piracy, etc.) and its impact on other relevant international organisations (WMI, NATO, EU, etc.) are most welcome.
We invite you to send an abstract (two pages maximum) in French or English by 15 March 2017 to firstname.lastname@example.org together with a short CV. Notification of acceptance will be sent on 31 March 2017. Presentations at the Conference can be given in either French or English.
Appel à contributions
LE CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ DES NATIONS UNIES ET LA MER
4-5 mai 2017
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Le droit de la mer est souvent limité en matière de lutte contre la criminalité. La Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer (CNUDM) est presque muette à ce sujet. Elle ne traite par exemple que trop peu des problématiques liées au trafic de drogue ou de migrants. Les seuls éléments sont assez anciens et ont trait au transport d’esclaves à la piraterie ou aux émissions non autorisées. Certains traités sectoriels viennent compléter la CNUDM, mais ils restent quand même assez limités (Protocole de Palerme, Convention de Vienne, Convention SUA, etc.).
Toutefois, la question fondamentale que le Colloque se proposer de traiter est la suivante : lorsque le droit de la mer est limité et ne fournit pas les outils juridiques nécessaires, le recours au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies peut-il être une alternative efficace pour combattre la criminalité en mer ? Il s’agira alors d’évaluer la pertinence du recours à cet organe comme solution juridique, notamment en ce qu’il permet d’offrir aux États un titre d’intervention lorsque le droit de la mer ne le fait pas.
Plus largement le Colloque abordera la question de l’influence de la pratique du Conseil de sécurité sur l’évolution du droit de la mer et inversement. À cette fin des contributions tant sur la pratique maritime du Conseil (en matière nucléaire ou de piraterie notamment) que sur son impact sur les autres organisations internationales compétentes (OMI, OTAN, UE, etc.) sont les bienvenues.
Les propositions sont à envoyer en français ou en anglais (2 pages maximum) à l’adresse suivante : email@example.com avant le 15 mars 2017 accompagnées d’un bref CV. Les résultats de la sélection seront connus le 31 mars 2017. Les interventions lors de la Conférence peuvent être faites en français ou en anglais.
Monday, February 20, 2017
- Javed Younas & Todd Sandler, Gender Imbalance and Terrorism in Developing Countries
- Julia Macdonald & Jacquelyn Schneider, Presidential Risk Orientation and Force Employment Decisions: The Case of Unmanned Weaponry
- Nadav G. Shelef & Yael Zeira, Recognition Matters!: UN State Status and Attitudes toward Territorial Compromise
- Theresa Schroeder, When Security Dominates the Agenda: The Influence of Ongoing Security Threats on Female Representation
- Florian Justwan, Trusting Publics: Generalized Social Trust and the Decision to Pursue Binding Conflict Management
- Sang Ki Kim, Third-party Intervention in Civil Wars and the Prospects for Postwar Development
- Raynee Gutting & Martin C. Steinwand, Donor Fragmentation, Aid Shocks, and Violent Political Conflict
- Thomas Gift & Daniel Krcmaric, Who Democratizes?: Western-educated Leaders and Regime Transitions
Institutions and International Law in Eastern Europe
Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO)
Date: 28–29 September 2017, Leipzig
International law is enjoying increasing popularity among historians of global and international affairs, due to a re-reading of legal norms and rules that questions a state-centered approach. Instead of seeing law as an outcome of state behavior, recent scholarship has examined the transnational character of law and legal communities, and the oftentimes complex negotiation processes that precede the codification and subsequent ratification of international conventions. This perspective aligns with the focus on border-crossing relations and on professional and nonstate actors and institutions that has become essential to global and international history. Moreover, connections forged between the history of international law and discussions of the limits of legal universalism have increased the legal dimension’s relevance for historians of empire and decolonization. Encircling notions of hegemony, imperialism, and civilization, and scrutinizing the role of international law in imperial and civilizing missions, this strand of research has given rise to regional histories of international law. Scholars have begun to explore the relationship between legal and regional developments by asking how international law has been tailored to serve specific regional interests, problems, or conflicts. This approach complements the focus on the law’s imperial bias and acknowledges the entanglement of legal and political agendas while also emphasizing the agency of regional actors. It also concedes that regional appropriations of international law could serve these actors’ own agendas or be a vehicle for emancipation.
The workshop unites research on the history of international law with studies on Eastern Europe to investigate the controversial role of international law in the complex and contentious reordering of the region since the Congress of Vienna. The workshop proposes that the extraordinary density of political, social and ethnic conflicts and the decades-long struggles over territorial boundaries in Eastern Europe have left clear traces in international law. More specifically, the workshop addresses these issues through the lens of international institutions, which offer a starting point from which to identify topics; single out involved states, groups, and transnational actors from East Central and Eastern Europe; and reveal how regional constellations were universalized in the process of negotiating and implementing international norms and rules.
The workshop stems from a research project at the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO) that deals with processes of juridification in international relations. The project advances the argument that the history of conflict in Eastern Europe has shaped modern international law to a significant degree. This contention holds for the results of the Crimean War (1854–1856) and the regulations formulated by the Congress of Berlin (1878), as well as for minority protections after World War I and the status of the Free City of Danzig, to mention a few examples. The main output of the research group will be “Law and History in Eastern Europe,” a three-part handbook to be published by de Gruyter in 2020. The handbook’s second part seeks to illuminate the relationship between law and international institutions from an Eastern Europe perspective. To this end, workshop participants might contribute chapters to the handbook.
The workshop welcomes contributions that cover the 19th and 20th centuries. Papers should focus either on legal issues in international institutions in Eastern Europe, or on the representation of Eastern Europeans in international institutions concerned with international law. Regarding subject matter, we invite papers presenting case studies from within the region that also connect to the wider topic of the legal transformation of international relations. Inter-regional comparisons are particularly welcome.
Participants are asked to submit their papers no later than two weeks before the start of the workshop. The workshop will be held on 28 and 29 September 2017 at the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO) in Leipzig, Germany. Travel and accommodation costs will be covered. Please send your proposal (max. 750 words) and a short CV by 10 March 2017 to Isabella.firstname.lastname@example.org.
This chapter examines a postcard which is readily available at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. As an object of international criminal law, the postcard reveals a great deal about the aims of international criminal law, and the concomitant image of international criminal law. I argue that the postcard demonstrates international criminal law’s particular preoccupation with two aims: ending impunity, and providing a meaningful voice for victims. I also examine the postcard as an object that is used in the branding and marketing of international criminal law. In particular, I examine the claims to end impunity and to provide a place for victims as statements to market the ICTY and international criminal law. But why does an object designed to ‘market’ an international criminal tribunal use language and imagery that suggests guilt? What is the effect of this? And what does the placement of the victim’s handcuffs and the accused’s handcuffs tell us about the place of the victim and the accused in these trials? I argue that these aspects of the postcard are problematic. As a marketing technique, this postcard succeeds in promoting particular aspects of international criminal law – but in doing so, it also manipulates (and reinforces) unhelpful tropes of good versus evil, of ‘deserving’ victimhood, and of conviction as a core component of international criminal law. The postcard and the handcuffs provide a place to critically analyse the system of international criminal law, and the stories it tells about its aspirations and operations.
In this paper, it is argued that Spinoza is far from being a ‘denier’ of international law. Instead, it is shown that Spinoza offers a nuanced argument for why states are compelled to cooperate with one another in the form of international law. The argument is developed as follows: Part II outlines Spinoza’s realist starting point which can be called the ‘international state of nature’. Part III reconstructs – drawing on his ethical and ontological theory outlined in the Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata (Ethics, E) and in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Theological-Political Treatise, TTP) – Spinoza’s international legal argument, i.e. the conditions that must be fulfilled for international law to exist. Part IV condenses and generalizes Spinoza’s international legal argument in the form of three analytical concepts (normativity of international law, being a State sui iuris and the concept of international cooperation). Part V concludes by outlining Spinoza’s lasting contribution to the theory of international relations and law.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
The Eleventh Annual Juris Conferences’ Investment Treaty Arbitration Conference will tackle the complex developments raised by investor-state arbitration and its intersection with international investments in the technology sector. Although there have only been a few investment cases touching on issues related to the technology sector, with continued international integration and the rise of product piracy, counterfeiting, issues related to IP rights, cybersecurity, and the internet of things, international trade and investment disputes may be inevitable in the years to come. Our group of eight authors again take contrary positions and grapple with the dramatic developments of investment arbitration as it relates to technology, intellectual property and investor-State arbitration. Our expert faculty will then continue the debate following the original contributions from our authors for what always proves to be highly entertaining. This conference will be of great value to practitioners, industry counsel, and academics alike who are interested in these important cutting-edge issues.
- Marion Jansen, Joost Pauwelyn & Theresa Carpenter, Introduction: the use of economics in international trade and investment disputes
- Robert Teh & Alan Yanovich, Integrating economic analysis into WTO dispute settlement practice: a view from the trenches
- Thomas Graham, Present at the creation: economists and accountants in international trade law practice
- Christian Lau & Simon Schropp, The role of economics in WTO dispute settlement and choosing the right litigation strategy – a practitioner's view
- David Unterhalter, On interpretation and economic analysis of law
- James Flett, The client's perspective
- Bruce Malashevich, The use of economics in competition law: what works and what doesn't across national jurisdictions?
- Anne van Aaken, What to do if economic insights are disputed: on the challenge to deal with competing and evolving theories or empirics in international trade disputes
- Marion Jansen & Marios Iacovides, Lost in translation: communication and interpretation challenges related to economic evidence in trade disputes
- Petros Mavroidis & Damien Neven, Land rich and cash poor? The reluctance of the WTO dispute settlement system to entertain economics expertise: an institutional analysis
- Jorge Miranda, The economics of actionable subsidy disputes
- Pablo M. Bentes, In search of a 'genuine and substantial' cause: the analysis of causation in serious prejudice claims
- Amar Breckenridge, The games we play – simulation models in merger analysis and their potential use in trade litigation
- Wolfgang Alschner, Aligning loss, liability and damages: towards an integrated assessment of damages in investment arbitration
- Bastian Gottschling & Willis Geffert, An economic assessment of contracts and requests for contract reform and damages in international arbitration
- Carla Chavich & Pablo Lopez, Economics in investor-state arbitration beyond quantum
- Manuel A. Abdala & Alan Rozenberg, Assessing investor damages involving publicly traded companies – with examples from the Yukos' cases
- Fuad Zarbiyev, From the law of valuation to valuation of law? On the interplay of international law and economics in fair-market valuation
- Theresa Carpenter, Marion Jansen & Joost Pauwelyn, Conclusion
- Theresa Carpenter, Marion Jansen & Joost Pauwelyn, Appendix. Guidelines for best practices for the use of economics in WTO dispute settlement
Saturday, February 18, 2017
A defence of the claim that giving effect to the morality of human rights is the formative aim of international human rights law.
Stone Sweet & Grisel: The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy
The development of international arbitration as an autonomous legal order is one of the most remarkable stories of institution building at the global level over the past century. Today, transnational firms and states settle their most important commercial and investment disputes not in courts, but in arbitral centres, a tightly networked set of organizations that compete with one another for docket, resources, and influence.
In this book, Alec Stone Sweet and Florian Grisel show that international arbitration has undergone a self-sustaining process of institutional evolution that has steadily enhanced arbitral authority. This judicialization process was sustained by the explosion of trade and investment, which generated a steady stream of high stakes disputes, and the efforts of elite arbitrators and the major centres to construct arbitration as a viable substitute for litigation in domestic courts. For their part, state officials (as legislators and treaty makers), and national judges (as enforcers of arbitral awards), have not just adapted to the expansion of arbitration; they have heavily invested in it, extending the arbitral order's reach and effectiveness. Arbitration's very success has, nonetheless, raised serious questions about its legitimacy as a mode of transnational governance.
The book provides a clear causal theory of judicialization using original data and analysis, and a broad, relatively non-technical overview of the evolution of the arbitral order. Each chapter compares international commercial and investor-state arbitration, across clearly specified measures of judicialization and governance. Topics include: the evolution of procedures; the development of precedent and the demand for appeal; balancing in the public interest; legitimacy debates and proposals for systemic reform. This book is a timely assessment of how arbitration has risen to become a key component of international economic law and why its future is far from settled.
Maia & Kolb: O Estatuto Internacional da Província Angolana de Cabinda à Luz do Direito Internacional Público
Este estudo visa aplicar alguns conceitos-chaves do direito internacional num contexto relativamente pouco conhecido, a saber, reivindicações de secessão em Angola. Antigos “tratados” celebrados com chefes indígenas podiam ser considerados como convenções de direito internacional ou eram atos de direito interno? Qual o papel que estes podem desempenhar nas atuais reivindicações de autodeterminação? Como apreciar em direito internacional a validade de um acordo relativo à independência de uma colónia concluído no âmbito de um direito constitucional português em plena mutação? A questão suscita comentários tanto do ponto de vista do direito nacional como do ponto de vista do artigo 46.º da Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados de 1969, cujo conteúdo poderia eventualmente ser aplicado a título de direito consuetudinário. O que pensar, em seguida, do argumento do direito de secessão a favor do “povo” cabindense? Será que tal povo existe na aceção do direito internacional? Além disso, o que é um povo no sentido do direito de autodeterminação? E como defini-lo neste caso? O que se deve pensar do argumento da secessão-remédio, segundo o qual uma minoria oprimida e sem acesso equitativo ao Governo de um Estado adquiriria um direito de secessão em direito internacional? Será que tal doutrina existe em direito internacional público geral? Como definir a opressão que visa? Qual a prática internacional a este respeito? Qual é, finalmente, a situação concreta dos nativos de Cabinda em relação ao Governo de Angola, ou seja, o seu tratamento em termos de direitos humanos ou de participação ao poder? Estas são algumas perguntas, entre outras, sobre as quais a presente obra tenta trazer esclarecimentos. O espaço lusófono, que serve aqui como pano de fundo, oferece-nos um prisma tangível aos vários aspetos de direito internacional público analisados.
Petersmann: When the Sovereign Sleeps: Who Protects Fundamental Rights and Other ‘Public Goods’ in Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements?
EU law requires the EU to place ‘the individual at the heart of its activities’, to take ‘decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’, and protect citizens and their fundamental rights also in the external relations of the EU. Free trade agreements (FTAs) protecting rights and remedies of citizens have been uniquely successful in European integration for providing transnational public goods (PGs) like equal rights of citizens, rule of law, open markets promoting general consumer welfare, and empowerment of citizens to use their ‘republican virtues’ for enforcing trade and competition rules in national and European courts. In FTA negotiations with non-European countries, however, the EU disregards its ‘cosmopolitan foreign policy mandate’ and regulatory ‘consistency’ requirements by emulating intergovernmental power politics of non-European trading countries. Rather than protecting fundamental rights and judicial remedies in domestic courts in economic integration among transatlantic democracies, the EU's transatlantic FTAs risk undermining fundamental rights and judicial remedies. Parliaments in the EU have not challenged the ‘disempowerment’ of citizens and ‘re-feudalization’ of EU trade policies through intergovernmental trade diplomacy. Citizens challenge interest group politics in transatlantic FTAs and the EU’s neglect for participatory and deliberative democracy and ‘subsidiarity’ in EU trade regulations of transnational ‘market failures’ and ‘governance failures’. The EU's new 'investment court provisions' in recent FTAs (e.g. with Canada) risk 're-fragmenting' international investment law; they are no model for reforming international investment law.
Ample research has demonstrated that exposure to inadmissible evidence affects decision-making in criminal and civil cases. However, the difficulty of ignoring information in the context of legal interpretation has not been examined yet. Our study addresses the possible effects that exposure to preparatory work has on the interpretation of treaties. In the present article, we examine the ability of students enrolled in international law courses and of international law experts to ignore preparatory work when they are not allowed to use it. We found that exposure to preparatory work affected the students’ interpretation of treaties, while no such effect was found among the experts. These results reaffirm the practical relevance of the debate over the hierarchy between the rules of treaty interpretation. In particular, our study demonstrates that preparatory work can play a significant role in decision-making, depending on the legal rule that applies to the use of such materials. More generally, our study suggests that legal interpretation by students and experts is qualitatively different, and that international law experts might be better able than non-experts to discount irrelevant information in the process of treaty interpretation.
While an abundance of literature covers the right of states to defend themselves against external aggression, this is the first book dedicated to the right to personal self-defense in international law. Drawing on his extensive experience as a human rights practitioner and scholar, Dr. Hessbruegge sets out in careful detail the strict requirements that human rights impose on defensive force by law enforcement authorities, especially police killings in self-defense. The book also discusses the exceptional application of the right to personal self-defense in military-led operations, notably to contain violent civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities.
Human rights also establish parameters on how broad or narrow the laws can be drawn on self-defense between private persons. Setting out the prevailing international standards, the book critically examines the ongoing trend to excessively broaden self-defense laws. It also refutes the claim that there is a human right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.
In extraordinary circumstances, the right to personal self-defence sharpens human rights and allows people to defend themselves against the state. Here the author establishes that international law gives individuals the right to forcibly resist human rights violations that pose a serious risk of significant and irreparable harm. At the same time, he calls into question prevailing state practice, which fails to recognize any collective right to organized armed resistance even when it constitutes the last resort to defend against genocide or other mass atrocities.
This chapter discusses the provisions in the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on the protection of labour and environmental standards and human rights. It first outlines the obligations of the parties to protect labour and environmental standards, human rights and democratic principles. Next, it discusses certain means by which the economic obligations of the parties may be interpreted, either expressly or by implication, to reflect these values. Third, it analyses the rights of the parties, in the context of exceptions, to adopt measures to protect labour and environmental standards and human right obligations, and the extent to which CETA’s obligations might expand the ordinary jurisdictional scope of these rights.
Friday, February 17, 2017
The Department of Law of the University of Naples “Federico II” and the Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development of the National Research Council of Italy are working jointly on the analysis of the link between Migration and Development. In the context of this cooper- ation, and following the publication of the collective volume Migration and Development: Some Re- flections on Current Legal Issues, Rome, 2016 (open access at http://eprints.bice.rm.cnr.it/15914/), they have decided to issue a call for papers for a second volume intended to address the specific issue of the relationship between human migration and the environment.
The link between migration and the environment is not new, environmental conditions have always influenced human mobility. However, the nature, the dynamics and the scale of environment related migration have dramatically changed in recent years, and the complex nexus between migration and the environment has drawn increasing attention in the contemporary international context.
This relationship is not easy to outline for several reasons, including the range of environmental phe- nomena that may cause migration flows (natural disaster as well as gradual process of environmental deterioration), the difficulty of isolating environmental factors from other political, social and eco- nomic drivers of migration, the complexity of differentiating between forced and voluntary migra- tions in cases of environment-induced flows. In addition, from a different perspective, migratory flows may contribute to environmental degradation in the areas of destination and transit, giving rise to phenomena such as unmanaged urbanization or temporary camps or shelter that produce further pressure on the environment.
The complexity of the link between migration and the environment challenges the current legal par- adigm in which migration is largely framed and calls into question the adequacy of the existing pro- tection frameworks. In several international fora, it is increasingly recognized that there are certain groups of people who move for environmental reasons and are in need of assistance and who currently fall outside of the scope of international protection.
The goal of the volume on Migration and the Environment: Some Reflections on Current Legal Issues and Possible Ways Forward is to discuss the extent to which people whose movements are induced by environmental factors are protected under the existing international legal framework, to investigate the main legal issues and the normative gaps and to analyze the solutions being discussed in the international arena.
Contributions can cover, inter alia, the following areas:
- Extent of the protection under international refugee law and the feasibility (and desira- bility) of an expansion of the notion of refugee;
- Human rights law and forms of complementary protection at the regional and national levels (EU, USA, Canada …);
- International instruments for the protection of Internally Displaced Persons;
- The international agenda for the protection of cross-border displaced persons in the con- text of natural disaster and climate change;
- Climate change and human mobility in the context of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and UNSustainable Development Goals;
- The case of low-lying island States;
- International instruments for the protection of stateless people.
The call for papers aims to offer an opportunity for experts, scholars and policy makers, for a critical review of the outcomes, implications and achievements on the relevant questions of international law on international migration and the environment.
Abstracts of no more than 500 words, written in English or French and including the author’s name and e-mail address, should be submitted to the following e-mail address: email@example.com.
A one-page curriculum vitae should be attached to the abstract.
The deadline for submission of abstracts is 30 March 2017.
Successful applicants will be notified via e-mail by 10 April 2017 and are expected to produce the final paper (8000-10000 words approx.) by 15 September 2017.
Papers will be peer-reviewed before final acceptance for publication.
Harvard International Law Journal
ILJ Volume 59 Call for Print Submissions
The Harvard International Law Journal is now accepting article submissions for Volume 59, Issue 1. The Journal seeks to publish innovative, original scholarship that makes a significant contribution to the field of international law. We welcome submissions from legal scholars, practitioners, and doctoral degree candidates on topics of private or public international law and related fields, including interdisciplinary work. (For information about student submissions, visit our website.) Please note that we do not generally publish articles on foreign or comparative law unless they raise and significantly engage with issues of international law.
While we may accept articles of up to 30,000 words, we prefer submissions of between 15,000 and 25,000 words, including footnotes. All articles should be typed in English with text double-spaced. Manuscripts must be submitted online via ExpressO. In addition to the article, submissions should include a short abstract, a CV with a list of recent publications, and current contact information. Footnotes should conform with The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th Ed.).
Articles will be reviewed on a rolling basis in February and March by a Submissions Committee comprised of J.D. and LL.M./S.J.D candidates, and may also be reviewed by our faculty advisors and/or scholars in our peer network. If short-listed, the article will be sent to the ILJ Executive Board for a final decision.We endeavor to respond to authors within a month of receiving a submission, but we are unfortunately unable to provide feedback for articles that are not selected. Once an article has been selected, the Editors-in-Chief will contact the author with a contract and further information on the publication process. The ILJ editorial process is a rigorous one, and authors should expect to work closely with Journal staff on substantial substantive and technical revisions prior to the article’s final publication.
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org with questions or to request an expedited review.
- Jorun Baumgartner, The Significance of the Notion of Dispute and Its Foreseeability in an Investment
- Tobia Cantelmo, The Inherent Power of Reconsideration in Recent ICSID Case Law
- Siegfried Fina & Gabriel M. Lentner, The European Union’s New Generation of International Investment Agreements and Its Implications for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
- Jarrod Hepburn & Luke Nottage, A Procedural Win for Public Health Measures
- Tania Voon, Philip Morris v. Uruguay: Implications for Public Health
- Rachel Frid de Vries, Stability Shaken? Israeli High Court of Justice Strikes Down the Stabilization Clause in the Israeli Government’s Gas Plan
- Martti Koskenniemi, It’s not the Cases, It’s the System
This Article crystallizes and then critiques a prominent view about the role of international law in the global order. The view — what I call the “cooperation thesis” — is that international law serves to help global actors cooperate, specifically by: (1) curbing their disputes, and (2) promoting their shared goals. The cooperation thesis often appears as a positive account of international law; it purports to explain or describe what international law does. But it also has normative force; international law is widely depicted as dysfunctional when it does not satisfy the thesis. In particular, heated or intractable conflict is thought to betray the limits of international law — to show that, on some issues, international law is not serving its functions.
That view of international law is conceptually flawed. It incorrectly assumes that conflict is an impediment to international law or a problem for international law to mitigate. As scholars from other disciplines have shown, however, conflict is symbiotic with the very functions that the thesis prizes. Even as international law enables global actors to curb their disputes and work toward their shared aims, it also enables them to do the opposite: to hone in on their differences and disagree — at times fiercely and without resolution. It does so because the two kinds of interactions are interdependent, and the legal mechanisms for both are the same. To put the point more starkly, conflict does not necessarily reveal deficiencies in international law because enabling it is inherent in the project of international law.
- Special Issue: Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance
- Jonathan Pickering, Carola Betzold & Jakob Skovgaard, Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance
- Carola Betzold & Florian Weiler, Allocation of aid for adaptation to climate change: Do vulnerable countries receive more support?
- Nina Hall, What is adaptation to climate change? Epistemic ambiguity in the climate finance system
- W. Pieter Pauw, Mobilising private adaptation finance: developed country perspectives
- Laurence Delina, Multilateral development banking in a fragmented climate system: shifting priorities in energy finance at the Asian Development Bank
- Jakob Skovgaard, Limiting costs or correcting market failures? Finance ministries and frame alignment in UN climate finance negotiations
- Jonathan Pickering & Paul Mitchell, What drives national support for multilateral climate finance? International and domestic influences on Australia’s shifting stance
- J. Timmons Roberts & Romain Weikmans, Postface: fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance
International lawyers and courts discuss the principle of systemic integration as the answer to certain difficulties arising from fragmentation of public international law. This article questions the main propositions pertaining international law scholarship and judicial practice as far as the application of systemic integration of treaties in the human rights area is concerned. The article argues, first, that, in many instances, the application of systemic integration raises serious interpretation and jurisdictional concerns. Second, the article submits that systemic integration may create new hegemonies among international courts and give rise to a less diverse and poorer international law in the future.