- B.S. Chimni, Customary International Law: A Third World Perspective
- Editorial Comment
- Harlan Grant Cohen, Multilateralism's Life Cycle
- Notes and Comments
- Anne van Aaken, Behavioral Aspects of the International Law of Global Public Goods and Common Pool Resources
- International Decisions
- Asier Garrido-Muñoz, Prime Minister v. Parliament of Catalonia
- Nuwan Peiris, Ghana v. Ivory Coast
- Manuel J. Ventura, Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Jean Galbraith, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Recent Books on International Law
- Ian Johnstone, reviewing The Impact of International Organizations on International Law, by José E. Alvarez
- Stephen M. Schwebel, reviewing Rosenne's Law and Practice of the International Court 1920–2015 (5th ed.), Vols. I–IV, by Malcolm N. Shaw; and The International Court of Justice, by Hugh Thirlway
- Jochen A. Frowein, reviewing The Betrayal: The Nuremberg Trials and German Divergence, by Kim Christian Priemel
- Meredith Kolsky Lewis, reviewing A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO, edited by Gabrielle Marceau
- Beth Van Schaack, reviewing Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volumes 1–5.- Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1, edited by Morten Bergsmo, Cheah Wui Ling and Yi Ping; Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 2, edited by Morten Bergsmo, Cheah Wui Ling and Yi Ping; Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 3, edited by Morten Bergsmo, Cheah Wui Ling, Song Tianying and Yi Ping; Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 4, edited by Morten Bergsmo, Cheah Wui Ling, Song Tianying and Yi Ping; and Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 5, edited by Morten Bergsmo, Klaus Rackwitz and Song Tianying
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Call for Papers: Gender, Health & Sustainable Development- The Role for International Human Rights Law
The Italian Ministry for Education, University, and Research (Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, MIUR) has issued a public call for 24 researcher positions.
The call is open to scholars of all nationalities who have spent three years working at a non-Italian research center or university and have been awarded a PhD degree, or equivalent, after 31 October 2011 and by 31 October 2014.
The winner of the call will work as a Senior Researcher with an initial 3-year working contract (Ricercatore a tempo determinato, tipologia B) that leads to Associate Tenured Track Professorship subject to National Scientific Habilitation (Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale, «ASN»).
The English translation of the Ministerial Decree is available here.
The deadline to submit the application is 28 March 2018, h. 24.00 (Italian local time).
In the context of this call, the University of Milan, Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies wishes to express its interest to welcome outstanding researchers in the areas of International Law and Comparative Law who would like to apply.
For additional information please contact Dr. Stefano Dominelli (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Call for Papers: Private International Law and Intellectual Property: Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments/Arbitral Awards
This article concerns the permissibility of amnesties for torture under the ECHR. It argues that when an amnesty case comes to Strasbourg, as it likely will, there is a good chance that the Court will make a serious error. That error will be to hold that the Convention requires the prosecution of torture in all circumstances – it will be to invalidate the amnesty. In part, such an approach will be informed by an assumption that each of the set of duties that flows from an absolute right is itself absolute. That assumption, combined with the way that the Court has specified the duty to prosecute violations of Article 3, would prevent the Court from taking into account powerful countervailing interests in play during peace negotiations. These countervailing interests mean that any claim that amnesties for the gravest wrongs are always impermissible is unsustainable.
- Renato Antonini, A ‘MES’ to be adjusted: past and future treatment of Chinese imports in EU anti-dumping investigations
- Pallavi Kishore, India’s Experience with the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
- Cemal Atici, Use of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the WTO by Developing Countries in the Context of Food Safety
- Thomas Cantens, The Political Arithmetic of Borders: Towards an Enlightened Form of Criticism
- Jim Della-Giacoma, The case of East Timor: Ancient history or the shape of things to come?
- Mark Malan, Action adapted to circumstance: Peacekeeping doctrine and the use of force
- Carlos Chagas Vianna Braga, Between absolute war and absolute peacekeeping
- Cedric de Coning, Implications of stabilisation mandates for the use of force in UN peace operations
- Stian Kjeksrud & Alexander Beadle, Understanding the utility of the UN military component to protect civilians in different scenarios
- Walter Dorn, Protecting civilians with force: Lessons and dilemmas from the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti
- Charles Hunt, The ‘All necessary means’, to what ends? The unintended consequences of the use of force by UN Peacekeepers
- Peter Nadin, The logic of force in UN peacekeeping: A policy primer
- Tim Ford, Leadership in UN Missions
- David Curran, The use of force and the civil-military dimension
- Darryl Watters, Generating the ability: The challenges of force generation
- James Sloan, UN peacekeeping and international law
Monday, March 19, 2018
- V.G. Butkevych, The International-Legal Ideology of Pre-Slavic Chiefdoms of the Ukrainian Ethnos (Part Four)
- Mark Somos, Boston in the State of Nature, 1761-1765: The Birth of an American Constitutional Trope
- Christopher Rossi, The Gulf of Fonseca and International Law: Condominium or Anti-Colonial Imperialism?
- Amy Kellam, Suzerainty and the 1914 Simla Agreement
- V. Popovski, Raphael Lemkin: Inventing and Codifying Genocide
- Notes and Comments
- M. Mulligan, The Status of Egypt After the 1840 Convention of London
- V. S. Ivanenko, Private International Law in Russia: The Earliest Work
- L. Anufrieva, Myths and Facts of the Russian Science of Private International Law: The Legacy of M. I. Brun
- V.V. Veeder, Looking for Professor B. E. Nolde
- International Legal Doctrine
- W.E. Butler, The Abbé Ferdinando Galiani and Neutrality
- Abbé Galiani, On the Reciprocal Rights of Belligerents and Neutrals
Today, investor-state arbitration embodies the worst fears of those concerned about runaway globalization - a far cry from its framers' intentions. Why did governments create a special legal system in which foreign investors can bring cases directly against states? This book takes readers through the key decisions that created investor-state arbitration, drawing on internal documents from several governments and extensive interviews to illustrate the politics behind this new legal system.
The corporations and law firms that dominate investor-state arbitration today were not present at its creation. In fact, there was almost no lobbying from investors. Nor did powerful states have a strong preference for it. Nor was it created because there was evidence that it facilitates investment - there was no such evidence.
International officials with peacebuilding and development aims drove the rise of investor-state arbitration. This book puts forward a new historical institutionalist explanation to illuminate how the actions of these officials kicked off a process of gradual institutional development. While these officials anticipated many developments, including an enormous caseload from investment treaties, over time this institutional framework they created has been put to new purposes by different actors. Institutions do not determine the purposes to which they may be put, and this book's analysis illustrates how unintended consequences emerge and why institutions persist regardless.
- Matthew Hilton, Oxfam and the Problem of NGO Aid Appraisal in the 1960s
- Joël Glasman, Measuring Malnutrition: The History of the MUAC Tape and the Commensurability of Human Needs
- Paul Morrow, A Theory of Atrocity Propaganda
- Dossier on Human Rights Rituals
- Benjamin Authers, Hilary Charlesworth, Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, & Emma Larking, Introduction
- Zachary Manfredi, Sharpening the Vigilance of the World: Reconsidering the Russell Tribunal as Ritual
- Tobias Kelly, Two Cheers for Ritual: The UN Committee Against Torture
- Shane Chalmers, The Beginning of Human Rights: The Ritual of the Preamble to Law
- Roland Burke, The Rites of Human Rights at the United Nations
- Essay Review
- Joshua Busby, Beyond Good Intentions: Responsible and Effective Advocacy in the Digital Age
Call For Papers: Infrastructures as Regulation (InfraReg)
Conference Dates: September 28-29, 2018
Deadline for Submissions: April 15, 2018
Infrastructures—whether physical, informational, digital—can have regulatory-type effects. These include requiring, preventing, channeling, enabling, and nudging particular human and social behavior. Infrastructures also help to shape second-order regulatory-type actions and structures. When stable, these infrastructures exert substantial power in social ordering. They interact or compete with law. In these ways, infrastructures have major effects on social relations, identities, roles, capabilities, and possibilities. We label these phenomena collectively by the moniker “Infrastructures as Regulation” (InfraReg). In our project we focus on regulatory effects of transnationally-connected infrastructures on social orders— e.g. effects on social relations, status, classes and class formation, social mobility, social time, and capabilities—and the interactions between social order and political, economic, and other infrastructure-based orders. More information about the project is available at www.iilj.org/infrareg
The Institute for International Law and Justice seeks submissions for both theoretical and empirical work on themes outlined above. Theoretical lines of inquiry could include:
- conceptualizations of the combined effects of physical, informational and digital infrastructures as a form of regulation that complements or even replaces law in ordering certain social relations;
- theorizing about how legal technologies and legal practices interact with, enable, shape, or regulate the constitution and operation of infrastructures-as-regulation, and vice versa;
- theorizing and developing propositions for the relationships between regulation by infrastructure and other forms of transnationally-influenced order (such as legal order and political order), including in major ordering projects (such as the Belt and Road Initiative).
Empirical work and case studies could address:
- how infrastructures combine at different scales and in different orders, including cases that illustrate and examine ways in which the interaction between physical, informational, and digital infrastructures operate together as regulation;
- how specific instances of infrastructure projects are designed or used to require or induce social actors into particular behavior or pathways;
- the inter-relationship between infrastructures and legal technologies, including cases of infrastructures working in tandem with law, displacing law, or even undermining law as a means to regulate social life;
- the interactions of activities and systems and people (including human capabilities and rights) with the infrastructure, and the ability of the regulated to influence and contest the design of infrastructures and the legal technologies they use.
Junior and senior scholars as well as experienced practitioners are invited to submit extended abstracts (300-500 words) or full papers, ideally in the range 15-35 pages (in PDF or Word format) to email@example.com by April 15, 2018. Please also provide contact details and a CV or link to an author bio. All applicants will be informed of the selection decisions quickly thereafter. Selection will be based on relevance to the theme, originality of research, innovative perspectives and arguments, and the overall blend and coherence of the conference. Authors invited who choose to take part will be asked to send final papers (ideally in the range of 8000-10000 words) by August 31, 2018.
For those selected from this Call for Papers, the IILJ will provide conference meals, and accommodation for those based outside the New York area. The IILJ also hopes to be able to assist with economy class travel funding in a limited number of cases where needed, subject to budget constraints.
Call for Papers: Rethinking Reparations in International Law
What role do reparations play in international law today? What is the theory behind reparations in different areas/systems of international law? Do reparations play a different role in different areas of international law (human rights, investment law)? How are reparations chosen by judges and arbitrators and how are damages calculated? What is the link between efficiency and reparations? How can reparations be made more efficient? How do judges/arbitrators understand their role in relation to reparations?
These questions will be at the centre of an ESIL-sponsored workshop held at the Lauterpacht Centre, University of Cambridge in November 2018. The workshop will seek to address the recent developments and scholarship in the area of reparations (remedies) in international law. It will bring together scholars writing on theory of reparations, those conducting empirical or comparative research, as well as practitioners, judges and arbitrators. The aim is to provide a platform for discussion of new ideas about efficiency of reparations in international law.
At this point, we would like to invite scholars and practitioners working in the area, to submit a max. 400-word abstract to Dr Veronika Fikfak at firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for submission is 30 April 2018. Abstracts will be selected by early June. Papers for the workshop will have to be submitted by mid-September.
The workshop is part of a larger project on Damages for Human Rights Violations funded by the ESRC. It is organised by Dr Veronika Fikfak, Lauterpacht Centre, University of Cambridge and Professor Photini Pazartzis, Athens Public International Law Centre, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. The aim is to publish suitable contributions as an edited collection or special edition of an international journal. Papers with an empirical or comparative approach are particularly welcome.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Saturday, March 17, 2018
There are two paradigms through which to view trade law and policy within the American constitutional system. One paradigm sees trade law and policy as quintessentially about domestic economic policy. Institutionally, under the domestic economics paradigm, trade law falls within the province of Congress, which has legion Article I authorities over commercial matters. The second paradigm sees trade law as fundamentally about America’s relationship with foreign countries. Institutionally, under the foreign affairs paradigm, trade law is the province of the President, who speaks for the United States in foreign affairs. While both paradigms have operated throughout American history, the domestic economics paradigm dominated in the nineteenth century, and the foreign affairs paradigm from the mid-twentieth century.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, trade law and policy has become increasingly divisive and contentious. Trade law and policy entered a new era of liberalization, characterized by international organizations (like the WTO) and a shift to mini-lateral free trade agreements. By 2016, backlash was in full force, with candidates Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton all coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Since taking office, President Trump has instituted high tariffs on solar panels, threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, and sparked concern about a trade war with China.
This Article makes three contributions. First, we argue that the current discontent over trade is not just a matter of the distribution of economic gains and losses but a matter of the distribution of constitutional powers. We provide a thorough descriptive account of the two paradigms for trade within our constitutional system and show that trade has migrated from a domestic to a foreign affairs matter – and ultimately that it has becoming unhooked even from specific foreign affairs objectives. As trade drifted further away from the balance struck by our separation of powers and became increasingly rooted in the Presidency, agreements liberalizing trade rules became more viable – but at the cost of the political sustainability that comes with greater congressional involvement.
Second, we make a normative case for rebalancing trade within the constitutional structure. We argue that trade shares few similarities with other foreign affairs and national security areas in which the President is seen to have a functional advantage, and perhaps surprisingly given the conventional wisdom, that the parochial interests of Congress present strong benefits to trade policymaking that are widely undervalued.
Finally, we apply this rebalanced framework for trade law and policy to a variety of contemporary debates, including the role of fast track authority in negotiating and approving trade agreements, the President’s power to declare trade wars, the scope of the President’s authority to withdraw from trade agreements, the use of unorthodox international agreements in the commercial context, and the increasing conflict between trade agreements and state and local authority, which we term “trade federalism.”
Call for Papers: Contemporary Challenges to International Law and Policy on Sustainable Development, Energy, Climate Change, Environmental Protection, Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer
Thursday, March 15, 2018
The practice of rendition — the involuntary transfer of an individual across borders without recourse to extradition or deportation proceedings — is not new. Indeed, the practice of snatching a defendant for trial — “rendition to justice” — has been used by governments for more than a century. Although rendition has been controversial in human rights circles, it has been celebrated by many as crucial in the fight against impunity for grave crimes. Former U.S. President George W. Bush was criticized for the “novel” practice of “extraordinary rendition” — the transfer of suspects to locations known for the systematic use of torture, including secret CIA prisons (this set of practices is hereinafter referred to as the “Extraordinary Rendition Program”). U.S. officials at the time defended the practice, relying on justifications developed to support “rendition to justice” and arguing that the U.S. Extraordinary Rendition Program was legal. Despite these justifications, international human rights bodies and intergovernmental organizations including the Council of Europe, the European Union, and human rights bodies of the United Nations, determined that the extraordinary form of rendition was unlawful under human rights law.
Soon after former President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, he promised to end the most severe human rights violations carried out by the U.S. government in the name of fighting terrorism, including the use of torture and secret detention facilities. While this move was a positive signal that the United States planned to bring its practice into line with international norms, the Obama Administration in fact retained a number of problematic tools developed by previous Administrations. Although Obama signed executive orders ending the use of torture and secret detention, he did not order the cessation of all informal transfers. Nor did he pursue accountability for those who designed and implemented the Extraordinary Rendition Program. Instead, his Administration continued to quash rendition-related cases with the argument that such cases dangerously threatened to reveal “state secrets.” Although it is impossible to know precisely how many informal transfers were carried out by the Obama administration, the number plainly was significantly smaller than those conducted by the Bush Administration. Instead, President Obama increased the use of drones to target and kill suspected terrorists outside the United States, and continued the use of proxy detention in the name of fighting terrorism.
The Trump Administration presents alarming new risks: in addition to the anti-terrorism tools left in place by the Obama administration, President Trump has promised to use torture and said he would fill Guantánamo Bay with “bad dudes” captured in the fight against al-Qaeda and ISIS. While President Trump’s most disturbing campaign promises have not yet come to fruition, the administration’s lack of transparency surrounding counter-terrorism measures, the on-going U.S. military engagements in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, and the hunt for Al Qaeda in Yemen present opportunities for the U.S. government to return to — or worsen — the abusive practices it pioneered as part of the Extraordinary Rendition Program. With the publication of the National Security Strategy in December 2017, the Trump Administration renewed its commitment to fighting terrorism in aggressive terms with little consideration for human rights.
The threat that counter-terrorism measures will become more abusive is made more stark by the rise in nationalist governments pursuing protectionist policies with weakening regard to human rights guarantees. With governments moving to close borders, deport non-nationals, denaturalize their own citizens, and use informal means to transfer suspects, the mechanisms through which a state may transfer custody of an individual — and the permissible purposes for such handovers — have escaped careful scrutiny. In this era of global realignment, the human rights principles guiding inter-state cooperation in such matters must be reasserted. This chapter examines the legal norms governing informal transfers and detentions in this new era and sets out a minimum standard that must be upheld whenever a state renders an individual, no matter how extraordinary the context.
- Symposium: Roughan-Halpin: In Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence
- Victor V. Ramraj, The elusive quest for precision in a messy pluralist reality
- Michael W. Dowdle, Do we really need a ‘pluralist jurisprudence’?
- Kirsty Gover, A fugitive jurisprudence?
- Jason Grant Allen, Encyclopaedia, genealogy and tradition in pursuit of pluralist jurisprudence
- Richard Collins, In pursuit of method in pluralist jurisprudence: what exactly is wrong with ‘non-pluralist jurisprudence’?
- Nicole Roughan & Andrew Halpin, A response
- Lorenzo Cotula, The state of exception and the law of the global economy: a conceptual and empirico-legal inquiry
- Derek McKee, The platform economy: natural, neutral, consensual and efficient?
- Heidrun Bohnet, Fabien Cottier, & Simon Hug, Conflict-induced IDPs and the Spread of Conflict
- Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, Civil War and the Formation of Social Trust in Kosovo: Posttraumatic Growth or War-related Distress?
- Karolina Milewicz, James Hollway, Claire Peacock, & Duncan Snidal, Beyond Trade: The Expanding Scope of the Nontrade Agenda in Trade Agreements
- William Spaniel & Peter Bils, Slow to Learn: Bargaining, Uncertainty, and the Calculus of Conquest
- Daniel Balliet, Joshua M. Tybur, Junhui Wu, Christian Antonellis, & Paul A. M. Van Lange, Political Ideology, Trust, and Cooperation: In-group Favoritism among Republicans and Democrats during a US National Election
- Benjamin T. Jones & Shawna K. Metzger, Evaluating Conflict Dynamics: A Novel Empirical Approach to Stage Conceptions
- Laura Sjoberg, Kelly Kadera, & Cameron G. Thies, Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship: Moving beyond Reiter’s Dichotomies toward Effective Synergies
- Jana von Stein, Exploring the Universe of UN Human Rights Agreements