Sunday, April 23, 2017

Crawford, Koroma, Mahmoudi, & Pellet: Essays in Honour of Djamchid Momtaz

James Crawford (Judge, International Court of Justice), Abdul G. Koroma (Judge, World Bank Administrative Tribunal; formerly, Judge, International Court of Justice), Said Mahmoudi (Stockholm Univ. - Law), & Alain Pellet (Université Paris Nanterre - Law) have published The International Legal Order: Current Needs and Possible Responses: Essays in Honour of Djamchid Momtaz (Brill | Nijhoff 2017). Contents include:
  • The Editors, Preface
  • Javad Zarif, Foreword
  • Yves Daudet, Brèves remarques sur la contribution de l’Académie de droit international de la Haye au développement du droit international
  • Pierre Michel Eisemann, Quelques remarques sur la place du droit au sein des organisations internationales
  • Said Mahmoudi, The Iran Nuclear Deal: Some International-law Aspects
  • Shinya Murase, Scientific Knowledge and the Progressive Development of International Law: with Reference to the ILC Topic on the Protection of the Atmosphere
  • Sundhya Pahuja & Cait Storr, Rethinking Iran and International Law: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case Revisited
  • Anicée Van Engeland, Statehood, Proto States and International Law: New Challenges, Looking at the Case of ISIS
  • Mohamed Bennouna, La Cour internationale de Justice et le traitement du contentieux dans la durée : Le temps retrouvé
  • James Crawford, The Place of the International Court in International Dispute Settlement
  • Jean d’Aspremont, International Lawyers and the International Court of Justice: Between Cult and Contempt
  • Marie-Françoise Labouz, Le règlement des différends investisseur/État (RIDE) : brève revue de doctrine avant réforme
  • W. Michael Reisman & Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, Legal Decisions and Their Implementation in International Law
  • Jamal Seifi, Peremptory Norms and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
  • Sienho Yee, Some Comments on the Temple (Interpretation) Judgment and the Impact of Possible Mistakes on the Temple Saga
  • Mohsen Abdollahi, Alleged Support of Terrorism as a Ground for Denying State Immunity
  • Hirad Abtahi, Types of Injury in Inter-States Claims: Direct Injury to the State
  • Lucius Caflisch, Réflexions sur l’immunité des États en matière civile
  • Alain Pellet, Responsibility of States in Cases of Human-rights or Humanitarian-law Violations
  • Mariano J. Aznar, Exporting Environmental Standards to Protect Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Area
  • Ida Caracciolo, Migration and the Law of the Sea: Solutions and Limitations of a Fragmentary Regime
  • Rafael Casado Raigón, La dimension internationale de la compétence de l’Union européenne en matière de pêche
  • Emmanuel Dupont & Alexia Solomou, Provisional Measures in Maritime Delimitation Cases Pierre-
  • Víctor L. Gutiérrez Castillo, The Contribution of the States of Central America to the Evolution of the New Law of the Sea
  • Gerhard Hafner, Does the Freedom of the Seas Still Exist?
  • Zalmaï Haquani, Les pays sans littoral et droit de la mer
  • Maurice Kamto, Considérations actuelles sur la méthode de délimitation maritime devant la Cour internationale de Justice. De charybde en scylla ?
  • Mariko Kawano, Compulsory Jurisdiction under the Law of the Sea Convention: Its Achievements and Limits
  • Ahmed Mahiou, L'Algérie et la Méditerranée
  • Bernard H. Oxman, Judicial Application of Environmental Standards under the Law of the Sea Convention
  • Jean-François Pulvenis de Séligny-Maurel, The Future of the High Seas Fisheries Legal and Institutional Framework
  • Natalino Ronzitti, Sunken Warships and Cultural Heritage
  • Emmanuel Roucounas, Users of the Law of the Sea: Some Recent Developments
  • Tullio Scovazzi ,The Relationship between Two Conventions Applicable to Underwater Cultural Heritage
  • Roberto Virzo, The Dispute Concerning the Enrica Lexie Incident and the Role of International Tribunals in Provisional Measure Proceedings Instituted Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  • Ricardo Abello-Galvis, La jurisprudence de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme et le jus cogens (2013-fevrier 2016)
  • Ove Bring, The Notion of Human Rights and the Issue of Cultural Relativism
  • Jorge Cardona, Droit a l’éducation et diversité : le droit à une éducation inclusive et équitable de qualité
  • Giuseppe Cataldi, Immunités juridictionnelles des États étrangers et droit de l’homme : quel équilibre entre les valeurs fondamentales de l’ordre national et le droit international coutumier ?
  • Nasrin Mosaffa, Protecting Children in and at War: From Legally Protected Subjects to ‘Others’ in the Conflict
  • Amir Hossein Ranjbarian, A propos de quelques éclaircissements jurisprudentiels dans le ciel gris de la lutte contre la torture
  • Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Les relations entre droits de l’homme et droit international humanitaire dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
  • Joe Verhoeven, Brèves remarques sur la répression du génocide
  • Michael Bothe, Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts - A Preliminary Comment on the Work of the International Law Commission
  • Zakaria Daboné, Regards sur le contenu des qualifications des principaux acteurs des conflits armés
  • Knut Dörmann & Tilman Rodenhäuser, Contemporary Challenges for International Humanitarian Law
  • Yves Sandoz, Le droit international humanitaire à l’épreuve des conflits contemporains
  • Sandra Szurek, L’espace humanitaire : un passage souhaitable de la pratique au droit ?
  • Paul Tavernier, L’évolution du droit international humanitaire au XXIème siècle : une nécessité ?
  • Abdelwahab Biad, Le droit international au défi de « l’exceptionnalisme nucléaire »
  • Farideh Shaygan, Intervention by Invitation as a Tool of New Colonialism
  • Yvenson St-Fleur, L’intervention par invitation d’un État tiers : le consentement au recours à la force contre des combattants étrangers terroristes

Johns: The Design of Enforcement: Collective Action and the Enforcement of International Law

Leslie Johns (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Political Science) has posted The Design of Enforcement: Collective Action and the Enforcement of International Law. Here's the abstract:
International organizations (IOs) play a vital role in enforcing international law. Many treaties are built on transnational enforcement, in which private actors challenge and litigate possible legal violations. Others feature international enforcement, in which only states can challenge possible violations. Some feature centralized enforcement, in which an IO has its own authority to challenge possible violations. I argue that collective action problems drive decisions about whether to enforce international law, and hence affect the optimal design of enforcement regimes. When cooperation generates concentrated benefits --- such as compensation for the expropriation of foreign investment --- transnational enforcement can work well because the cost and benefit of enforcement are both fully internalized by the litigant. However, when cooperation generates diffuse benefits --- like a cleaner environment --- individuals and even governments have incentive to free-ride on enforcement, avoiding the cost of litigation in the hopes that another actor will step up. In such circumstances, supranational enforcement is necessary to uphold international law. Finally, hybrid regimes, which contain multiple forms of enforcement, are most needed when an IO has members that vary in their ability to enforce, or regulates issue areas that vary in their diffuseness. I assess my argument by examining litigation in the European Court of Justice, and provide inductive evidence that the European Union is more likely to enforce EU laws that generate diffuse benefits, while private actors and governments are more likely to enforce EU laws that generate concentrated benefits.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Rossi: Nagorno-Karabakh and the Minsk Group: The Imperfect Appeal of Soft Law in an Overlapping Neighborhood

Christopher R. Rossi (Univ. of Iowa - Law) has posted Nagorno-Karabakh and the Minsk Group: The Imperfect Appeal of Soft Law in an Overlapping Neighborhood (Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 45-70, 2017). Here's the abstract:
For more than two decades, the Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, the United States, and France, has served as a steward over the dispute resolution process involving Nagorno-Karabakh, a tiny enclave of ethnic Armenians belonging to Azerbaijan. Although described as a frozen conflict, the conflict is fluid, dangerous, and increasingly complicated by overlapping interests and spheres of influence. This Article concentrates on the power-shifting attempts to facilitate a solution via use of the soft law forum of the Minsk Group, problematizing the perceived theoretical advantages found in the literature that instantiate soft law's superior potential for solutions. That powerful countries may utilize informal processes and forums to pursue parochial interests while forestalling peaceful settlement suggests a need to examine critically efforts to use soft law as an expedient to norm development.

Ratner: Compensation for Expropriations in a World of Investment Treaties: Beyond the Lawful/Unlawful Distinction

Steven R. Ratner (Univ. of Michigan - Law) has posted Compensation for Expropriations in a World of Investment Treaties: Beyond the Lawful/Unlawful Distinction (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
When a state expropriates a foreign investment in violation of a bilateral or other treaty on investment protection and a foreign investor sues, where should a tribunal look for the standard of compensation -- to the amount specified in the treaty, to an external standard for violations of internationally law generally, or elsewhere? Investor-state tribunals have offered wildly different answers to this question, trapped in a paradigm set by the Permanent Court of International Justice ninety years ago that distinguishes between so-called lawful and unlawful expropriations. This article evaluates and criticizes the caselaw of tribunals and proposes a new framework for compensation grounded in five key purposes of a remedy in the context of contemporary investor-state relations. It also clarifies the economic and legal significance of valuing expropriated investments using information available at the date of expropriation as opposed to the date of the award. The article proposes that, instead of the current lawful/unlawful distinction, compensation take account of specific aspects of the expropriatory act, including whether the state's failure to pay was based on a bona fide disagreement with the investor and whether the state violated the procedural criteria spelled out in an investment treaty. It concludes with a consideration of the implications of this approach for violations of other provisions of investment treaties.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Oxford Public International Law Discussion Group - Trinity Term 2017

Here's the schedule for the Oxford Public International Law Discussion Group for Trinity Term 2017:
  • April 27, 2017: Anne van Aaken (Univ. of St. Gallen), Behavioral Economics and Global Public Goods and Global Commons
  • May 4, 2017: Marie Jacobsson (Legal Admiser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden), Protecting the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict: Are Legal Measures Possible? Some Reflections on the Work of the ILC
  • May 11, 2017: Matthew Happold (Univ. of Luxembourg), Immunity from Execution of Military and Cultural Goods
  • May 18, 2017: James Harrison (Univ. of Edinburgh), “Judicial Review” of Coastal State Enforcement Action by International Courts and Tribunals: The Emergence of Dynamic and Expansive Interpretations of UNCLOS Safeguards

Special Issue: Le TTIP – Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement

The latest issue of Revue internationale de droit économique (Vol. 30, no. 4, 2016) focuses on "Le TTIP – Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement." Contents include:
  • Le TTIP – Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement
    • Clotilde Jourdain-Fortier, Le TTIP : Fenêtre sur rue
    • Hanns Ullrich, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) : Extending Trade Policy to Domestic Markets
    • Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Transatlantic Free Trade Agreements : Lack of EU Leadership for Reforming Trade and Investment Law ?
    • Pierre Defraigne, Trois objections fondamentales contre le TTIP (Traité commercial transatlantique)
    • Vassilis Hatzopoulos, Les techniques de libéralisation de la prestation de services sous le TTIP
    • Clotilde Jourdain-Fortier, Vers un marché transatlantique de la santé ou les enjeux de la coopération réglementaire du projet de Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d’investissement (TTIP) dans le domaine pharmaceutique

Symposium: Crises, Schisms, and the Way Forward for International Law

Today, April 21, 2017, the Harvard International Law Journal will hold its spring symposium. The theme is: "Crises, Schisms, and the Way Forward for International Law." The program is here.

Murphy: The Conceptual Foundations of Transitional Justice

Colleen Murphy (Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - Philosophy) has published The Conceptual Foundations of Transitional Justice (Cambridge Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:
Many countries have attempted to transition to democracy following conflict or repression, but the basic meaning of transitional justice remains hotly contested. In this book, Colleen Murphy analyses transitional justice - showing how it is distinguished from retributive, corrective, and distributive justice - and outlines the ethical standards which societies attempting to democratize should follow. She argues that transitional justice involves the just pursuit of societal transformation. Such transformation requires political reconciliation, which in turn has a complex set of institutional and interpersonal requirements including the rule of law. She shows how societal transformation is also influenced by the moral claims of victims and the demands of perpetrators, and how justice processes can fail to be just by failing to foster this transformation or by not treating victims and perpetrators fairly. Her book will be accessible and enlightening for philosophers, political and social scientists, policy analysts, and legal and human rights scholars and activists.

New Issue: International Organizations Law Review

The latest issue of the International Organizations Law Review (Vol. 13, no. 2, 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • Ramses A. Wessel, You Can Check out Any Time You like, but Can You Really Leave?
  • Daniël M. Grütters, NATO, International Organizations and Functional Immunity
  • Yaraslau Kryvoi, Procedural Fairness as a Precondition for Immunity of International Organizations
  • Hao Duy Phan, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: International Legal Personality and Its Treaty-Making Power
  • Gloria Fernández Arribas, The Institutionalization of a Process: The Development of the Kimberley Process towards an International Organization
  • Zsuzsanna Deen-Racsmány, The Relevance of Disciplinary Authority and Criminal Jurisdiction to Locating Effective Control under the ARIO

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Wills: Contesting World Order? Socioeconomic Rights and Global Justice Movements

Joe Wills (Univ. of Leicester - Law) has published Contesting World Order? Socioeconomic Rights and Global Justice Movements (Cambridge Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:
What do equality, dignity and rights mean in a world where eight men own as much wealth as half the world's population? Contesting World Order? Socioeconomic Rights and Global Justice Movements examines how global justice movements have engaged the language of socioeconomic rights to contest global institutional structures and rules responsible for contributing to the persistence of severe poverty. Drawing upon perspectives from critical international relations studies and the activities of global justice movements, this book evaluates the 'counter-hegemonic' potential of socioeconomic rights discourse and its capacity to contribute towards an alternative to the prevailing neo-liberal 'common sense' of global governance.

Dunoff & Pollack: The Judicial Trilemma

Jeffrey L. Dunoff (Temple Univ. - Law) & Mark A. Pollack (Temple Univ. - Political Science) have posted The Judicial Trilemma (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
International tribunals confront a “Judicial Trilemma”: specifically the states that design, and the judges that serve on, international courts face an interlocking series of trade-offs among three core values: (i) judicial independence, the freedom of judges to decide cases on the facts and the law; (ii) judicial accountability, structural checks on judicial authority found most prominently in international courts in reappointment and reelection processes; and (iii) judicial transparency, mechanisms that permit the identification of individual judicial positions (such as through individual opinions and dissents). The Trilemma is that it is possible to maximize, at most, two of these three values. Drawing on interviews with current and former judges at leading international courts, this paper unpacks the logic driving the Judicial Trilemma, and traces the varied ways in which this logic manifests itself in the design and operation of the International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, Court of Justice of the European Union, and the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body. The Trilemma introduces a new set of perspectives that enables us to conceptualize the limits of judicial independence at international courts, and identify strategies to enhance this independence.

Scarfi: The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas: Empire and Legal Networks

Juan Pablo Scarfi (Universidad Nacional de San Martin - School of Politics and Government) has published The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas: Empire and Legal Networks (Oxford Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:
International law has played a crucial role in the construction of imperial projects. Yet within the growing field of studies about the history of international law and empire, scholars have seldom considered this complicit relationship in the Americas. The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas offers the first exploration of the deployment of international law for the legitimization of U.S. ascendancy as an informal empire in Latin America. This book explores the intellectual history of a distinctive idea of American international law in the Americas, focusing principally on the evolution of the American Institute of International Law (AIIL). This organization was created by U.S. and Chilean jurists James Brown Scott and Alejandro Alvarez in Washington D.C. for the construction, development, and codification of international law across the Americas. Juan Pablo Scarfi examines the debates sparked by the AIIL over American international law, intervention and non-intervention, Pan-Americanism, the codification of public and private international law and the nature and scope of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as the international legal thought of Scott, Alvarez, and a number of jurists, diplomats, politicians, and intellectuals from the Americas. Professor Scarfi argues that American international law, as advanced primarily by the AIIL, was driven by a U.S.-led imperial aspiration of civilizing Latin America through the promotion of the international rule of law. By providing a convincing critical account of the legal and historical foundations of the Inter-American System, this book will stimulate debate among international lawyers, IR scholars, political scientists, and intellectual historians.

Conference: Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward?

On May 5, 2017 the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara will host a conference on "Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward?," in cooperation with the Interest Groups on International and European Human Rights Law and Private International Law of the Italian Society of International and European Union Law. Further information may be found here. Here's the idea:

Il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Ferrara organizza un seminario dal titolo Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward?, in cooperazione con i Gruppi di interesse sul Diritto internazionale ed europeo dei diritti umani e sul Diritto internazionale privato e processuale della Società italiana di diritto internazionale e diritto dell’Unione europea (SIDI). L’iniziativa intende proporre un’analisi a tutto tondo dei problemi legati all’esercizio della giurisdizione universale civile – una questione attualmente pendente di fronte alla Grande Camera della Corte europea dei diritti umani nell’affare Nait-Liman c. Svizzera.

The seminar aims at an all-round reassessment of the problems related to the exercise of universal civil jurisdiction. The challenge of providing appropriate venues for enforcing the right to reparation of victims of serious human rights violations raises a number of complex issues in the perspective of public and private international law. The interaction between specialists of both fields will provide the opportunity for an in-depth analysis of these open problems, which are currently under scrutiny by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Nait-Liman v. Switzerland.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

New Issue: Global Responsibility to Protect

The latest issue of Global Responsibility to Protect (Vol. 9, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • Lisa Hultman & Karin Johansson, Responding to Wartime Sexual Violence: UN Peacekeeping and the Protection Agenda
  • Stacey Henderson, The Arms Trade Treaty: Responsibility to Protect in Action?
  • Jawoon Kim & Alan Bloomfield, Argumentation, Impact, and Normative Change: Responsibility to Protect after the Commission of Inquiry Report into Human Rights in North Korea
  • Ian Hall, Perilous Interventions and the Responsibility to Protect
  • Kudrat Virk, Perilous Interventions and the Indian Debate on R2P: A Case of Limited Engagement and Missed Opportunity
  • James Pattison, Perilous Noninterventions? The Counterfactual Assessment of Libya and the Need to be a Responsible Power
  • Sandra Destradi, India’s Reluctant Approach to R2P: Lessons from Perilous Interventions

White: Bridging Divides in Transitional Justice: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Cheryl S. White has published Bridging Divides in Transitional Justice: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Intersentia 2017). Here's the abstract:

The backdrop to Bridging Divides in Transitional Justice is Cambodia’s history of radical Communist revolution (1975–1979) under the brutal Khmer Rouge regime, and the culture of impunity and silence imposed on the society by successive national governments for close to three decades. Dialogue on the suppressed past began in 2006 as key figures of the regime were brought before the in situ internationalised criminal court, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). The ECCC forms part of the panoply of international criminal courts of the post-Cold War era. The book engages with the dissonance between the expressivism of idealised international criminal trials and their communicative or discursive value within the societies most affected by their operation. An alternative view of the transitional trial is posited as the author elucidates the limits of expressivism and explores the communicative dynamics of ECCC trial procedure which have precipitated unprecedented local debate and reflection on the Khmer Rouge era.

The book provides a timely and nuanced analysis of the ECCC’s politically contentious and frequently criticised proceedings by examination of the trial dialogue in the Court’s first two cases. From transcripts of the proceedings, exchanges between trial participants including witnesses, civil parties and the accused, are examined to show how, at times, the retributive proceedings assumed the character of restorative justice and encompassed significant dialogue on current social issues, such as the victim/perpetrator equation and the nature of ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder flowing from the events that took place under this violent regime The Court’s capacity for representative and discursive proceedings is attributed to the substantive inclusion of the voice of the victim in proceedings, a modified inquisitorial procedure, narrative testimony and role-sharing between national and international court actors.

Woodward: The Ideology of Failed States: Why Intervention Fails

Susan L. Woodward (City Univ. of New York, Graduate Center - Political Science) has published The Ideology of Failed States: Why Intervention Fails (Cambridge Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:
What do we mean when we use the term 'failed states'? This book presents the origins of the term, how it shaped the conceptual framework for international development and security in the post-Cold War era, and why. The book also questions how specific international interventions on both aid and security fronts - greatly varied by actor - based on these outsiders' perceptions of state failure create conditions that fit their characterizations of failed states. Susan L. Woodward offers details of international interventions in peacebuilding, statebuilding, development assistance, and armed conflict by all these specific actors. The book analyzes the failure to re-order the international system after 1991 that the conceptual debate in the early 1990s sought - to the serious detriment of the countries labelled failed or fragile and the concept's packaging of the entire 'third world', despite its growing diversity since the mid-1980s, as one.

Antkowiak & Gonza: The American Convention on Human Rights: Essential Rights

Thomas M. Antkowiak (Seattle Univ. - Law) & Alejandra Gonza (Univ. of Washington - Law) have published The American Convention on Human Rights: Essential Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:
This book offers a thorough, critical, and accessible analysis of the American Convention on Human Rights which is the main human rights treaty of the Americas. The authors closely review the jurisprudence and the binding judgments of the two institutions charged with interpreting the Convention: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.They focus on the rights most developed by the Court and Commission, namely the rights to equality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, property, due process and judicial protection, as well as the freedom of expression and reparations. They examine the case law with a victim-centered lens while identifying key jurisprudential developments, discussing critical areas that lack consistency and rigor, and proposing alternative conceptual approaches.

New Issue: Global Summitry

The latest issue of Global Summitry (Vol. 2, no. 2, Winter 2016) is out. Contents include:
  • William Tobey, Peering down from the Summit: The Path to Nuclear Security 2010–2016 and beyond
  • Christopher Kobrak, Interwar Financial Summits: The Economic Consequences and Lessons of Attempts to Repair a Broken World
  • Selcuk Colakoglu & Mehmet Hecan, Turkey in Global Governance: An Evaluation of Turkey’s G20 Presidency and the Antalya Summit 2015
  • Jonathan Luckhurst, The G20’s Growing Political and Economic Challenges

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

New Issue: Review of International Political Economy

The latest issue of the Review of International Political Economy (Vol. 24, no. 2, 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • Commentaries
    • Erica Owen & Stefanie Walter, Open economy politics and Brexit: insights, puzzles, and ways forward
    • Mark Blyth & Matthias Matthijs, Black Swans, Lame Ducks, and the mystery of IPE's missing macroeconomy
    • Henry Farrell & Abraham Newman, BREXIT, voice and loyalty: rethinking electoral politics in an age of interdependence
    • Vivien A. Schmidt, Britain-out and Trump-in: a discursive institutionalist analysis of the British referendum on the EU and the US presidential election
    • Aida A. Hozić & Jacqui True, Brexit as a scandal: gender and global trumpism
  • Original Articles
    • Leonard Seabrooke & Kevin L. Young, The networks and niches of international political economy
    • Heike Döring, Rodrigo Salles Pereira dos Santos & Eva Pocher, New developmentalism in Brazil? The need for sectoral analysis

Bellia & Clark: The Law of Nations and the United States Constitution

Anthony J. Bellia Jr. (Univ. of Notre Dame - Law) & Bradford R. Clark (George Washington Univ. - Law) have published The Law of Nations and the United States Constitution (Oxford Univ. Press 2017). Here's the abstract:
The Law of Nations and the United States Constitution offers a new lens through which anyone interested in constitutional governance in the United States should analyze the role and status of customary international law in U.S. courts. The book explains that the law of nations has not interacted with the Constitution in any single overarching way. Rather, the Constitution was designed to interact in distinct ways with each of the three traditional branches of the law of nations that existed when it was adopted--namely, the law merchant, the law of state-state relations, and the law maritime. By disaggregating how different parts of the Constitution interacted with different kinds of international law, the book provides an account of historical understandings and judicial precedent that will help judges and scholars more readily identify and resolve the constitutional questions presented by judicial use of customary international law today. Part I describes the three traditional branches of the law of nations and examines their relationship with the Constitution. Part II describes the emergence of modern customary international law in the twentieth century, considers how it differs from the traditional branches of the law of nations, and explains why its role or status in U.S. courts requires an independent, context-specific analysis of its interaction with the Constitution. Part III assesses how both modern and traditional customary international law should be understood to interact with the Constitution today.

New Issue: International & Comparative Law Quarterly

The latest issue of the International & Comparative Law Quarterly (Vol. 66, no. 2, April 2017) is out. Contents include:
  • Articles
    • Onder Bakircioglu & Brice Dickson, The European Convention in Conflicted Societies: The Experience of Northern Ireland and Turkey
    • Natalie L. Dobson & Cedric Ryngaert, Provocative Climate Protection: EU ‘Extraterritorial’ Regulation of Maritime Emissions
    • Pok Yin S. Chow, Reservations as Unilateral Acts? Examining the International Law Commission's Approach to Reservations
    • Bjørn Kunoy, Assertions of Entitlement to the Outer Continental Shelf in the Central Arctic Ocean
    • Alan Greene, Defining Terrorism: One Size Fits All?
    • Chris O'Meara, Should International Law Recognize a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?
    • Fiona de Londras & Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Mission Impossible? Addressing Non-Execution Through Infringement Proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights
  • Shorter Article and Notes
    • Jed Odermatt, The Development of Customary International Law by International Organizations

Brockman-Hawe: Accountability for 'Crimes Against the Laws of Humanity' in Boxer China

Ben Brockman-Hawe has posted Accountability for 'Crimes Against the Laws of Humanity' in Boxer China: An Experiment with International Justice at Paoting-Fu (University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 627-713, 2016). Here's the abstract:

The birth of international criminal law is typically traced to the post-war prosecutions of Nazi and Japanese war criminals by the Allied powers, when in fact the Great Powers frequently turned to internationalized criminal or quasi criminal forums, as well as the rhetoric of ‘humanity’ and ‘civilization,’ to project power, establish narratives, manage public opinion, express dissatisfaction, and defend humanitarian values in the century after the Napoleonic wars. That these stories have been relegated to a narrative hinterland belies the important role each played in establishing vocabulary for international criminal law and shaping expectations of accountability. The purpose of this paper is to restore one such significant but unexplored caesure; the trial of four Chinese officials before an ‘International Commission’ by the Great Powers in the wake of the inter-religious violence that characterized the Boxer Uprising.

Although the Commission has recently received some attention by a few dedicated historians, it has so far escaped close scrutiny within the international criminal law community. Accordingly, a number of questions about the trial have remained unanswered. What actually happened at Paoting-Fu? Was it fair? Why did this operation, unlike others, result in an international criminal trial? What meaning did the trial have for the belligerents and the communities they represented? What consequences did the trial have for the development of international criminal law?

Drawing on previously unexplored material from state archives, published and unpublished missionary correspondence and military memoirs, and contemporaneous press reports, this paper addresses these questions in four parts. Part 2 of this article first sets the scene by briefly describing the state of the armed conflict in October 1900, then recounts the story of the Commission’s day-to-day operation, culminating in the execution of three Chinese officials. Part 3 sets the trial in its legal, cultural and strategic context, positioning it as an event framed by, among other factors, the concomitant coherence of international criminal law and a shift in thinking about the role of collective punishment in war. Part 4 highlights how the relevant constituencies viewed the trials, and traces the influence of this seminal experiment with individual accountability for international crimes on later efforts to create an international jurisdiction to try the Kaiser in the wake of the First World War. Finally, Part 5 explores the judicial character and fairness of the Commission.

de Mestral: Second Thoughts: Investor State Arbitration between Developed Democracies

Armand de Mestral (McGill Univ.) has published Second Thoughts: Investor State Arbitration between Developed Democracies (CIGI Press 2017). Contents include:
  • Armand de Mestral, Introduction
  • Armand de Mestral, Investor-State Arbitration between Developed Democratic Countries
  • Céline Lévesque, The European Commission Proposal for an Investment Court System: Out with the Old, In with the New?
  • Charles-Emmanuel Côté, An Experienced, Developed Democracy: Canada and Investor-State Arbitration
  • David Schneiderman, Listening to Investors (and Others): Audi Alteram Partem and the Future of International Investment Law
  • Armand de Mestral & Robin Morgan, Does Canadian Law Provide Remedies Equivalent to NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration?
  • Armand de Mestral & Lukas Vanhonnaeker, The Impact of the NAFTA Experience on Canadian Policy Concerning Investor-State Arbitration
  • David A. Gantz, Investor-State Dispute Settlement in US Law, Politics and Practice: The Debate Continues
  • Marc Bungenberg, A History of Investment Arbitration and Investor-State Dispute Settlement in Germany
  • Carmen Otero García-Castrillón, Spain and Investment Arbitration: The Renewable Energy Explosion
  • Csongor István Nagy, Central European Perspectives on Investor-State Arbitration: Practical Experiences and Theoretical Concerns
  • August Reinisch, The European Union and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: From Investor-State Arbitration to a Permanent Investment Court
  • Luke Nottage, Investor-State Arbitration Policy and Practice in Australia
  • Shotaro Hamamoto, Debates in Japan Over Investor-State Arbitration with Developed States
  • Younsik Kim, Investor-State Arbitration in South Korean International Trade Policies: An Uncertain Future, Trapped by the Past
  • Hugo Perezcano, Risks of a Selective Approach to Investor-State Arbitration
  • Ucheora Onwuamaegbu, Limiting the Participation of Developed States: Impacts on Investor-State Arbitration
  • Armand de Mestral, Investor-State Arbitration and Its Discontents: Options for the Government of Canada

Monday, April 17, 2017

Rossi: The Transboundary Dispute Over the Waters of the Silala/Siloli

Christopher R. Rossi (Univ. of Iowa - Law) has posted The Transboundary Dispute Over the Waters of the Silala/Siloli: Legal Vandalism and Goffmanian Metaphor (Stanford Journal of International Law, Vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 55-87, 2017). Here's the abstract:
The waters of the Silala/Siloli, located in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert dividing Bolivia and Chile, originate in Bolivia, flow for a mere four kilometers before entering Chile, and flow for four more kilometers before commingling with the San Pedro tributary and debouching into the Pacific Ocean. And yet this tiny basin, located in one of the most remote and inhospitable places on earth, forms what the United Nations calls one of the most hydropolitically vulnerable basins in the world. Bolivia claims that a Chilean concessionaire artificially diverted the waters in 1908 and Chile now illegally draws from the waters, long after Bolivia terminated the concession agreement. Chile claims the waters form a natural transboundary watercourse that would flow as a servitude into Chile even if the waters never had been augmented or directed by the canals. Questions of law and fact blur the legal status of these waters, their possible relationship to a transboundary aquifer, and the customary application of equitable and reasonable use standards regarding a river, if indeed the Silala/Siloli is a river. As the case heads toward The Hague for consideration by the International Court of Justice, this Article concentrates on the evolving relationship between these historically troubled riparians, borrowing from the sociological framework analysis of Erving Goffman to investigate how international dispute settlement mechanisms may indeed be challenged by ceremonial forms of dramaturgy that play more to domestic audiences than pacific settlement outcomes. In the Anthropocene age, acute concerns about fresh water and non-navigable watercourses now have the potential to erupt into major conflicts between states. These conflicts draw critical attention to the evolving relationship between groundwater and surface water regimes, certainly in the great hydrographic basins of the world and, as this case details, in one of the smallest and most remote catchments on earth.

Kleinlein: Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control

Thomas Kleinlein (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main - Law) has posted Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control (European Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This article fathoms the contestability of a European Consensus and its significance for the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). A ‘combined legitimation strategy’ of the ECtHR, comprising European Consensus and the new procedural approach to the margin of appreciation indicated by several judgments of the ECtHR, opens up spaces for democratic contestation and deliberation. Progressive, rights-friendly judgments that take a mere trend in ‘vanguard’ State Parties for a European Consensus will probably provoke domestic contestation in ‘laggard’ states. This potential backlash can be productive because it can subsequently impart additional legitimation on the ECtHR’s judgment. Procedural rationality control, in turn, ensures that this avenue of democratic legitimation is kept open and that there are institutional structures and processes to consider and balance human rights adequately in domestic debates. Combining consensus-based arguments with a procedural approach to the margin of appreciation reconciles the impact of a European Consensus and the need for democratic deliberation. High standards in domestic procedures can possibly rebut the presumption in favour of the solution adopted by the majority of Convention States. Potentially, this approach also allows democratic domestic law-making institutions to react to judgments of the ECtHR based on a European Consensus.