Call for Submissions for the 10th Annual Toronto Group Conference
Advancing International Law in a Global Society:
Reconciliation, Participation and Collective Action
April 28-29th, 2017 at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Toronto, Canada
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Toronto Group Conference, we ask what the future of international, transnational and comparative law could be in resolving increasing divisions in global society. In posing this question, we aim to reimagine the practice of law as, above all, providing a space for reconciliation, collective action and robust participation, that responds to and is inclusive of critical, but neglected voices.
In approaching presentation topics, applicants may consider how international, transnational and comparative law could:
The Toronto Group Conference brings together students and emerging scholars from across the globe. Papers on any subject matter in international, transnational and comparative law that address one or more of the themes above are welcome and encouraged. Interested individuals should send a short bio and an abstract of 300-500 words by January 10, 2017. Applicants will be notified of results by January 30, 2017.
- foster relationships while connecting the values, norms and expectations of diverse groups?
- redress injustices and be forward looking?
- address unequal power and the exclusion of a variety of voices and stakeholders?
- maintain self-determination and identity, while finding common ground?
- ensure the law’s resilience and sustainability, through true participation?
Questions and abstracts should be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
*** for more information, including a non-exhaustive list of potential topics, see here ***
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
International Criminal Justice: Theory, Policy and Practice
Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference (Newcastle University) 5th-7th April 2017
Call for Papers
The international criminal justice stream at the SLSA Annual Conference contains four panel sessions and invites submissions on all areas of substantive international criminal justice, whether on theory, policy or practice. Empirical work would be particularly welcomed and papers based on “works in progress” will be considered so long as the work is sufficiently developed. Both individual papers and panel submissions (of three related papers) can be submitted for consideration. Postgraduate students are also encouraged to submit abstracts.
Selected papers from the conference will be published in a forthcoming edition of The Hague Justice Journal.
For an informal discussion please email the convenor, Anna Marie Brennan at Anna.Marie.Brennan@liverpool.ac.uk
Abstracts must be no longer than 300 words and must include your title, name and institutional affiliation and your email address for correspondence.
The deadline for the submissions is Monday 16 January 2017.
- Paolo Davide Farah, Introduction and Overview of the Book
- Paolo Davide Farah, The Development of Global Justice and Sustainable Development Principles in the WTO: Multilateral Trading System through the Lens of Non-Trade Concerns: An Appraisal on China’s Progress
- Claudio Di Turi, Economic Globalization and Social Rights: the Role of the International Labor Organization and the WTO
- Angelica Bonfanti, Multinational Corporations and Corporate Social Responsibility in a Chinese Context: An International Law Perspective
- Leïla Choukroune, Rights Interest Litigation, Socio-Economic Rights and Chinese Labor Law Reform
- Valentina Sara Vadi, Law, Culture, and the Politics of Chinese Outward Foreign Investment
- Mark Klaver & Michael Trebilcock, Chinese Investment in Africa: Strengthening the Balance Sheet
- Francesco Sindico & Julie Gibson, Soft, Complex and Fragmented International Climate Change Practice: What Implications for International Trade Law?
- Imad Ibrahim, Thomas Deleuil, & Paolo Davide Farah, The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in the International Regime of Climate Change
- Marion Lemoine, The Kyoto Protocol: Carbon Pricing and Trade Prospects. The Clean Development Mechanism from the Perspective of the Developing Countries
- Elena Cima, The Role of Domestic Policies in Fostering Technology Transfer: Evidence from China
- He Weidong, China's Environmental Legislation and Its Trend Towards Scientific Development
- Luo Li, Research on the Reform of the Judicial Relief System for Environmental Disputes in China
- Carla Peng, The Impact of the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC on Chinese Law and the Consequential Reforms to Fight Climate Change
- Zhixiong Huang, The Development of NGOs in China: A Case Study on Their Involvement with Climate Change
- Paolo Farah & Riccardo Tremolada, A Comparison Between Shale Gas in China and Unconventional Fuel Development in the United States: Health, Water and Environmental Risks
- Jean Yves Heurtebise, Understanding Non-Trade Concerns through Comparative Chinese and European Philosophy of Law
- Flavia Zorzi Giustiniani, The Right to Food in International Law and WTO Law: An Appraisal
- Ning Libiao, The Right to Food in China: Cultural Foundation, Present and Future
- James R. Simpson, Projections of China’s Food Security to 2030: Obligations as an Agricultural Superpower
- Roberto Soprano, China and the Recognition and Protection of the Human Right to Water
- Christophe Germann, China Meets Hollywood at WTO: Janus’ Faces of Freedom. Standards of Right and Wrong between National and International Moralities
- Rogier Creemers, Cultural Products and the WTO: China's Domestic Censorship and Media Control Policies
- Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Trade in Audiovisuals – The Case of China
- Danny Friedmann, Rise and Demise of US Social Media in China. A Touchstone of WTO and BIT Regulations
- Julien Chaisse & Xinjie Luan, Can Trade Restrictions Be Justified by Moral Values? Revisiting The Seals Disputes Through a Law and Economics Analysis
- Denise Prévost, Health Protection Measures as Barriers to EU Exports to China in the Framework of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
- Lorenzo Di Masi, SPS, Public Health and Environmental Provisions in East Asia RTAs: ASEAN and China
- Lukasz Gruszczynski, Tivadar Otvoes, & Paolo Davide Farah, Product Safety in the Framework of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
- Piercarlo Rossi, Non-Trade Concerns and Consumer Protection in China: Surrounding Issues
- A. Rajendra Prasad, Legal Protection of Consumers in Developing Countries: An Asian Perspective
- Hu Junhong, From Remedy of Damage to Risk Prevention. An Analysis of the New Legislative Implications of the Chapter on “Product Liability” in China’s Tort Liability Law from the Perspective of Consumer Protection
- Nadia Coggiola, Tort Liability for the Compensation of Damages Caused by Dangerous Substances in China
- Shujie Feng, Xin Shu & Ningning Zhang, The Protection of Biotechnological Innovation by Patent in the United States, Europe, France, and China. A Comparative Study from the Perspective of the TRIPs Agreement
- Jayashree Watal, Public Health, Intellectual Property Rights, and Developing Countries’ Access to Medicines
- Jianqiang Nie, The Relationship between the TRIPs Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folk Protection from a Chinese Perspective
- Francesca Spigarelli & Andrea Filippet, Grasping Knowledge in Emerging Markets: is this the case of Western Pharmaceutical Companies in China?
- Jeongwon Bourdais Park, Toward the Green Comfort Zone: Synergy in Environmental Official Development Assistance
- Research Articles
- Leah C. Stokes, Amanda Giang, & Noelle E. Selin, Splitting the South: China and India’s Divergence in International Environmental Negotiations
- Zoe Phillips Williams, Investor-State Arbitration in Domestic Mining Conflicts
- Andreas Goldthau & Benjamin K. Sovacool, Energy Technology, Politics, and Interpretative Frames: Shale Gas Fracking in Eastern Europe
- Karoline Steinbacher &Michael Pahle, Leadership and the Energiewende: German Leadership by Diffusion
- Marissa Bongiovanni Schmitz & Erin Clover Kelly, Ecosystem Service Commodification: Lessons from California
- Lisa Vanhala & Cecilie Hestbaek, Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations
- Book Review Essay
- Hamish van der Ven, Power and Authority in Global Climate Governance
- Legal Problems of Intra-EU BITs
- Marc Bungenberg & August Reinisch, Introduction
- Panos Koutrakos, The Relevance of EU Law for Arbitral Tribunals: (Not) Managing the Lingering Tension
- Mavluda Sattorova, Investor Rights under EU Law and International Investment Law
- Martins Paparinskis, Investors’ Remedies under EU Law and International Investment Law
- Hanno Wehland, The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v Romania and Beyond
- Christina Binder, A Treaty Law Perspective on Intra-EU BITs
- Teis Tonsgaard Andersen & Steffen Hindelang, The Day After: Alternatives to Intra-EU BITs
- Luke Nottage, Rebalancing Investment Treaties and Investor-State Arbitration: Two Approaches
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
- D. Rezai Shaghaji, L'émergence des obligations erga omnes de protection des droits humains découlant des normes impératives et l'habilitation des états membres de la communauté internationale d'agir
- J.P.B. Bidias À Mbassa, Le recours à la légitime défense par les organisations régionales dans la lutte contre le terrorisme
- C. Monkam, Le « raisonnable » en droit OHADA : réflexion à partir du droit des contrats de transport de marchandises par route
- G. Willems, La séparation des couples en droit anglais et belge : contribution de droit comparé à la réflexion sur l'équilibre entre équité et sécurité juridique en droit de la famille
- Y. Donders, Defending the Human Rights Defenders
- M. Neglia, The UNGPs – Five Years On: From Consensus to Divergence in Public Regulation on Business and Human Rights
- J. Planitzer, Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation: Can Obligatory Reporting by Corporations Prevent Trafficking?
- E. Lambert Abdelgawad, Dialogue and the Implementation of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments
The Nazis compelled, enlisted, and ‘promoted’ detainees into the administration of the labor and death camps. These detainees were called Kapos. The Kapos constitute a particularly contested, and at times tabooified, element of Holocaust remembrance. Some Kapos deployed their situational authority to ease the conditions of other prisoners, while others acted cruelly and committed abuses. This project explores treatment of the Kapo on film. This paper considers two films: Kapò (1959 dir. Pontecorvo (Italy)) and Kapo (2000 dir. Setton (Israel)), and additionally one stage play, Kapo in Jerusalem (2013 dir. Lerner (Israel)) which derives from a film of the same title (2014 dir. Barbash (Israel)). While these works do not explicitly consider international criminal law, they vivify themes of agency, blame, survival, shame, sacrifice, and recrimination with which law grapples. These two films vary in genre: a pulpy feature fiction film (Kapò (1959)) and a controversially-received documentary reportage (Kapo 2000); the stageplay (Kapo in Jerusalem), itself derivative of a film of the same title, is a fictional (and gripping) drama drawn from the experiences of an actual Auschwitz Kapo. This paper interrogates how these creative works portray victim-perpetrator circularity; how they contribute to history, memory, and recollection; and didactically how they explain ‘what happened,’ ‘why,’ and ‘what to do now’. This paper additionally contrasts cinematographic accounts and criminal law’s accounts, in particular, those in Israel’s Kapo trials. In the 1950’s, the Knesset passed legislation – the Nazi and Nazi Collaboration Punishment Act – to criminally charge suspected Jewish Kapos who had emigrated to the state of Israel following the Holocaust. Authorities conducted approximately forty prosecutions. The trials were awkward, the language of judgment gnarly, the absolutes of conviction or acquittal crudely reductionist, and the judges ‘trembled’ at having to sentence. This paper contends that cinematographic depictions of victim-victimizers can sooth the criminal law’s anxieties by filling spaces ill-served by the criminal law.
Monday, December 5, 2016
Call for Submissions: The Burden of Intra-EU Mobility on National Welfare Systems: Between Myth and Reality
Since its founding a decade ago, IntLawGrrls: voices on international law, policy, practice has grown into the premier intlawblog written primarily by women – several hundred of them, plus a few men.
To help celebrate, we at the Dean Rusk International Law Center, University of Georgia School of Law, are delighted to host, at our Athens, Georgia campus, "IntLawGrrls! 10th Birthday Conference,” on March 3, 2017.
IntLawGrrls débuted on that same date in 2007. A post by founder Diane Marie Amann, who serves as Georgia Law’s Associate Dean for International Programs & Strategic Initiatives and Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, began:
“With great pride and joy we announce the birth, on this 3d day of the 3d month – Girls’ Day in Japan – of the newest arrival in the blogosphere. IntLawGrrls joins a world where cultures, ideas, and markets commingle, where humanity reveals both its best promise and its worst underside. It is a world where women act, as prime ministers or ministers of state, as lawmakers, as judges, and as advocates, in international organizations and in society at large. It is our hope through IntLawGrrls to strengthen our voices as we continue to teach and work in international law, policy, practice.”
The next 10 years saw thousands of pathbreaking posts (available here and here) and, at least as important, the growth of a community of scholars and practitioners. Everyone in that community is welcome to contribute to our conference (one in the law school’s series of Georgia Women in Law Lead – Georgia WILL – events) by presenting on an issue within inclusive scope of our blog.
Conference organizers: IntLawGrrls’ original editors
Strategies to promote women’s participation in shaping international law and policy amid the global emergence of antiglobalism
Who may submit
All in IntLawGrrls’ community, at all stages of their careers
Paper topics welcomed
Any aspect of international, comparative, transnational, or foreign law, policy, or practice. For an idea of the potential scope, have a look at our posts (here and here). We encourage papers in subfields that men historically have dominated.
In keeping with our blog's submissions policy, we welcome proposals in English, French, or Spanish.
How to submit
Click here to upload your:
- abstract, in no more than 500 words
- biography, in no more than 150 words
Submissions must be uploaded no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on January 1, 2017; speakers’ participation will be confirmed on a rolling basis, and at the latest by January 20, 2017.
Preferred arrival: Thursday, March 2. Ideally, plan to arrive at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport this afternoon in order to take part fully in Friday’s daylong conference. Early arrivals are welcome to attend another Georgia WILL event – our Women Law Students Association will host the 35th annual Edith House Lecture, featuring Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, from 3:30 to 5 p.m.
Conference: all day Friday, March 3, followed by a conference dinner to be hosted by Georgia Law – a great opportunity to share birthday cake, network, catch up with old friends, and make new ones
Preferred departure: Saturday, March 4
Although we are unable to cover the costs of your airfare or hotel accommodations, we will offer some assistance with Atlanta-Athens ground transportation on the preferred dates described above.
We have reserved a block of Athens hotel rooms at a discounted rate, and will make this information available to participants as papers are accepted.
Hope to see you here in March!
Import tariffs have fallen steeply worldwide over the last several decades, but has trade policy persisted through a rise in the use of other instruments? I study this question in the context of China’s 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization, using panel data on Chinese export policies. I find that after its entry into WTO, the distribution of China’s export restrictions across industries increasingly resembles the inverse of its pre-WTO import tariff schedule. The evidence suggests that increases in export restrictions are likely to have partly restored China’s pre-WTO pattern of industrial protection.
- Jaime de Melo & Laurent Wagner, Aid for Trade and the Trade Facilitation Agreement: What They Can Do for LDCs
- Emily Lydgate, Do the Same Conditions Ever Prevail? Globalizing National Regulation for International Trade
- Anna G. Tevini, ASEAN’s Long Journey to Effective Trade in Goods Liberalization: Scope and Depth of Integration Commitments Under the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement
- Louise Curran & Andoni Maiza, Here There Be Dragons? Analysis of the Consequences of Granting Market Economy Status to China
- Yi Shin Tang & João Paulo Hernandes Teodoro, The Politics and Outcomes of Preferential Trade Strategies: Evidence from TRIPS-Plus Provisions in US-Latin America Relations
- Olasupo Owoeye, Regionalism and WTO Multilateralism: The Case for an African Continental Free Trade Area
- Sannoy Das, Food Security Amendments to the WTO Green Box: A Critical Re-Examination
This new research project a) analyses foundational concepts in international criminal law, b) correlates the teachings of leading philosophers of law and scholars with international criminal law, and c) explores, against this background, the potential and limits of international criminal law. By generating such knowledge and perspectives, the project i) seeks to clarify and deepen the intellectual roots of the discipline of international criminal law. Such anchoring in older and more diverse schools and traditions of thought should contribute towards maturing international criminal law as a discipline, and cement the consensus around its basic building blocks. On the basis of a) and b) above, the project also ii) aims to offer reflections on how the discipline of international criminal law should evolve further, what its perceivable outer limits may be, and which gentle civilizers other than international criminal law should begin where its reach necessarily ends. In his recent study ‘Confessions of a Born-Again Pagan’ (Yale University Press, 2016, 1,161 pp.), Professor Anthony T. Kronman, long-time Dean of Yale Law School, offers a learned lawyer’s reminder of the limits of the reach of law.
There has been an apparent flourishing of international criminal law since the early 1990s. States have led the way by establishing and sustaining special war crimes jurisdictions – international, internationalised and national – and by negotiating the legal infrastructure of the permanent International Criminal Court, setting it up, funding it, and being patient with it. Non-governmental organizations have cheered states along, advocating certain benchmarks when states designed the jurisdictions, and subsequently offering assistance to the courts and tribunals, in particular their prosecution services. Practicing judges and lawyers within the war crimes jurisdictions commenced the detailed analysis, interpretation and writing about the applicable international criminal law. It took several years for academics to catch up in what had become a rapidly expanding, state- and practice-led field. But they have since made their contributions in considerable numbers, generating a dense literature of articles, monographs, commentaries and blogs.
This body of doctrinal or dogmatic literature – texts on doctrines, rules, offences, elements or other norms and provisions of international criminal law – has not only accumulated and matured, but perhaps started to saturate in some areas of the discipline. We see early signs of a will to dogmatize that could soon go beyond the actual needs of the practice of criminal justice for core international crimes – a lawyerly inclination towards ‘Überdogmatisierung’. Similarly, the literature on the relational or socio-political role of the practice of international criminal law (that is, criminal justice for core international crimes) has become abundant, in particular in the context of so-called transitional justice. We may well be approaching a point where the world has adequate access to expertise on international criminal law and its possible application during transitions towards peace and stability, away from armed conflict. Needless to say, such adequacy of expertise does not equate with a stronger will by governments to actually use criminal justice for core international crimes.
Whereas the discipline of international criminal law could become over-dogmatised and it concurrently lacks a crystallized sub-discipline of philosophy of international criminal law, we will recognize and build on the work done by a few individual authors on more theoretical aspects of the discipline. As there is no clear line between doctrinal or dogmatic and philosophical approaches to international criminal law, our project invites contributions also on this exact question. As stated above, the latter should focus on foundational concepts or categories, including, but obviously not limited to, ‘punishment’, ‘responsibility’, ‘accountability’, ‘retribution’, ‘mental state’, ‘intent’, ‘harm’, ‘Rechtsgut’, ‘legally protected interest’, ‘humanity’, ‘humane’, ‘integrity’, ‘deterrence’, ‘prevention’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘territoriality’, and discretionary markers such as ‘reasonable’, ‘proportional’ and ‘necessity’. Emerging terms like ‘reconciliation’ and ‘unity’ are included in the project.
The rules and tests that make up legal doctrines, and are subjected to doctrinal writing, are usually built over long periods of time, with contributions from law-makers, judges, prosecutors, counsel, and publicists. The foundational concepts on which rules, tests and principles are based are older yet, and have been given meaning also by philosophical, religious and other actors, from across the globe. This project would like to correlate their relevant texts – which may at the time have addressed criminal law, public international law more broadly, or philosophy – with foundational concepts of contemporary international criminal law. Relevant thinkers include – but are not in any way restricted to – Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, Emmerich de Vattel, Immanuel Kant, Georg W.F. Hegel, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Raphael Lemkin, Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas.
The announcement of this call for papers coincides with the publication of Cambridge Professor Philip Allott’s policy brief ‘How to Make a Better World: Human Power and Human Weakness’, in which he argues that the “high social function of philosophy must be restored”, a sentiment that also permeates Professor Kronman’s Confessions. Allott writes: “Law cannot be better than the society that it serves. But lawyers have a duty to try to make the law as good as it can be. Nowhere is this more necessary than in international society. We have inherited an international legal system that was rationalised in the eighteenth century as a system for the piece-meal reconciling of the self-interest of states, as represented by their governments”. The third dimension of the present research project – exploring the further potential and limitations of international criminal law – invites a future-oriented rationalisation of the discipline, assessing whether its foundational concepts impose clear limits for the further development of its content and ways of enforcement. Can and should international criminal law become a common criminal law of mankind, extending beyond wrongdoing in armed conflict and similar exceptional situations, to serious harm to, for example, the environment, public health or financial markets? Does international criminal law in its present, rudimentary form fail to protect Rechtsgüter or interests that reflect common contemporary or emerging values? Do the intellectual roots of international criminal law imply common enforcement or jurisdictional mechanisms even more binding than those already vested in the International Criminal Court?
Call for papers
The ‘Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law’ project seeks to address these and related questions from the perspective of multiple disciplines and angles. Papers will be discussed in a project conference to be held in New Delhi on 25-26 August 2017, and considered for publication in an anthology to be edited by a team led by Professor Morten Bergsmo. All papers will be reviewed by an editorial committee. Interested speakers should send a draft title and abstract of their proposal (500 words), written in English, together with a curriculum vitae to email@example.com. Proposals are reviewed on a rolling basis, and are due no later than 21 March 2017. Selected speakers will be notified as they are accepted, no later than 25 March 2017. Their travel to, and accommodation in, New Delhi will be covered by CILRAP. Guidance will be offered to authors during their preparation of papers, as may appropriate.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
- Kamari M. Clarke, Abel S. Knottnerus & Eefye de Volder, Africa and the ICC: an introduction
- Shamiso Mbizvo, The ICC in Africa: the fight against impunity
- Makau W. Mutua, Africans and the ICC: hypocrisy, impunity, and perversion
- Solomon Ayele Dersso, The ICC's Africa problem: a spotlight on the politics and limits on international criminal justice
- Kamari M. Clarke, The ICC, affective transference and the rhetorical politics of sentimentality
- Lee J. M. Seymour, The ICC and Africa: rhetoric, hypocrisy management and legitimacy
- Paul D. Schmitt, France, Africa and the ICC: the neocolonist critique and the crisis of institutional legitimacy
- Abel S. Knottnerus, The AU, the ICC and the prosecution of African presidents
- Sammy Gakero Gachigua, Discursive reconstruction of the ICC-Kenya engagement through Kenyan newspapers' editorial cartoons
- Thomas P. Wolf, A 'criminal investigation', not a 'political analysis'? Justice contradictions and the electoral consequences of Kenya's ICC cases
- Patryk I. Labuda, The ICC in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a decade of partnership and antagonism
- Stephen Smith Cody, Alexa Koenig & Eric Stover, Witness testimony, support, and protection at the ICC
- Karin Willemse, Dafur tribal courts, reconciliation conferences and 'Judea': local justice mechanisms and the construction of citizenship in Sudan
- Kristin C. Doughty, Interpretations of justice: the ICTR and Gacaca in Rwanda
- Abel S. Knottnerus & Eefje de Volder, International criminal justice and the early formation of an African criminal court
- Sara Kendall & Clare da Silva, Beyond the ICC: state responsibility for the arms trade in Africa
- Kamari M. Clarke, Abel S. Knottnerus & Eefje de Volder, Epilogue: perceptions of justice
This article explores the legalization characteristics of the investment rules of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Measured against orthodox and external benchmarks, ASEAN’s investment regime is relatively limited. We make the following two arguments in this article. First, we argue that while ASEAN members have subscribed to global norms in their own collective investment rules, they have done so in an intentionally selective manner shaped fundamentally by key contextual dynamics. These encompass a complex combination of ASEAN members’ unique deliberation modality (the “ASEAN Way”) informed by their shared historical experience coupled with negative social learning. Using those insights, we suggest that is both possible and desirable to understand the ASEAN approach as an independent and legitimate form of legalization, rather than as a failed or flawed model. Second and relatedly, we argue that the idiographic nature of legalization in ASEAN compels us to rethink the conventional universal (nomothetic) approach to legalization and embrace a more nuanced conception.
Friday, December 2, 2016
Workshop: International/EU Law Scholarship and Teaching Facing Digital Technologies and Innovative Approaches
Petersen: The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Politics of Identifying Customary International Law
It is often observed in the literature on customary international law that the identification practice of the International Court of Justice for customary norms deviates from the traditional definition of customary law in Art. 38 (1) lit. b of the ICJ Statute. However, while there are many normative and descriptive accounts on customary law and the Court’s practice, few studies try to explain the jurisprudence of the ICJ. This study aims at closing this gap. I argue that the ICJ’s argumentation pattern is due to the institutional constraints that the Court faces. In order for its decisions to be accepted, it has to signal impartiality through its reasoning. However, the analysis of state practice necessarily entails the selection of particular instances of practice, which could tarnish the image of an impartial court. In contrast, if the Court resorts to the consent of the parties or widely accepted international documents, it signals impartiality.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
POLISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Call for papers (Volume XXXVI)
Polish Yearbook of International Law (PYIL) is currently seeking articles for its next volume (XXXVI), which will be published in June 2017. Authors are invited to submit complete unpublished papers in areas connected with public and private international law, including European law. Although it is not a formal condition for acceptance, we are specifically interested in articles that address issues in international and European law relating to Central and Eastern Europe. Authors from the region are also strongly encouraged to submit their works.
Submissions should not exceed 12,000 words (including footnotes) but in exceptional cases we may also accept longer works. We assess manuscripts on a rolling basis and will consider requests for expedited review in case of a pending acceptance for publication from another journal.
All details about submission procedure and required formatting are available at the PYIL’s webpage.
Please send manuscripts to firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for submissions is 31 January 2017.
For some time, critics of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) have urged its arbitrators and litigants (particularly respondent states) to draw from other sources of international law, particularly human rights law, to promote interpretations of international investment agreements (IIAs) that cohere with other international legal regimes, including human rights values. Some have hoped that the use of human rights law would not only lessen the fragmentation of international law encouraged by self-regarding mechanisms such as ISDS but would also promote the "re-balancing" of IIAs to permit greater scope for sovereigns to regulate. This essay examines the ways European human rights law has been cited in publicly available investor-state awards. It finds considerable reliance on such citations in the largest known database of such awards. But close examination of such citations, including in the recent Philip Morris v. Uruguay case dealing with tobacco regulation, casts doubt on whether this reliance is likely to produce the results that some anticipate. Investor-claimants are as likely to cite to European human rights law as are respondent states. It is not at all clear from the results to date that recourse to human rights has either 'humanized' international investment law or made it more coherent.
- Assessing the gravity threshold under the ICC Statute: Criteria and methods in the light of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla Case
- Introduced by Emanuele Cimiotta and Chiara Ragni
- Marco Longobardo, Factors relevant for the assessment of sufficient gravity in the ICC. Proceedings and the elements of international crimes
- Chantal Meloni, The ICC preliminary examination of the Flotilla situation: An opportunity to contextualise gravity
The fall of communism in the late 1980s and the end of the Cold War seemed to signal a new international social order built on pluralist democracy, the rule of law, and universal human rights. But the window of opportunity for creating this more just, more equal, and more secure world slammed shut just as quickly as it opened. Rather than celebrate the triumph of democracy over autocracy, or political freedom over totalitarian rule, the West exulted in the victory of capitalism over communism. Neoliberal policies of deregulation and privatization that minimized the role of the state were imposed on the transitional societies of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as economically weak and politically fragile nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Twenty-five years later, the world reaps the fruits of that market-driven state foundation: inequality; poverty; global economic, food, financial, social, and ecological crises; transnational organized crime and terrorism; proliferating weapons; fragile states.
Human Rights or Global Capitalism is not simply concerned with the success or failure of neoliberal policies per se or judging whether they are good or bad. Rather, it examines the application of those policies from a human rights perspective and asks whether states, by outsourcing to the private sector many services with a direct impact on human rights—education, health, social security, water, personal liberty, personal security, equality—abdicate their responsibilities to uphold human rights and thereby violate international human rights law. Manfred Nowak explores these examples and outlines the ways in which neoliberal policies contravene the obligations of states to protect the human rights of their people.