The past twenty years have seen a tremendous rise in international dispute settlement mechanisms. As international adjudication has become more prominent and pervasive some of its most fundamental tenants have also come under deep scrutiny. Recently, a new debate has emerged regarding party-appointments — a widespread feature in international arbitration. While international arbitrators, like national judges, are supposed to be neutral and impartial and to exercise independent judgment, practitioners and scholars concur that arbitrators often lean in favor of the nominating party. As a result of concerns over lack of impartiality, “blind appointments” — wherein nominees do not know who appointed them — has been suggested as a corrective intervention in the arbitration field.
This Article explores the causes, implementation challenges, and possible limitations of blind appointments in arbitration. It makes three contributions: First, it proposes a theoretical framework to understand the different biases introduced with the nomination of judges in international adjudication — compensation, affiliation, selection and epistemic effects. Second, based on data of international investment arbitration proceedings, it shows that blinding is a promising intervention to target affiliation effects while maintaining the benefits resulting from the parties’ participating in the tribunal’s formation. Third, it explains how blind appointments may have important limits as to their corrective properties and explores the conditions that are more favorable for the success of this proposal in other fields of international adjudication.
At a more general level, this intervention is an important precursor to understanding the importance of conceptual and experimental research in international adjudication. It attempts to motivate further empirical investigations to address debates over biases and judicial politics in international courts and tribunals.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
What explains the correlation between membership in International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and the occurrence of militarized disputes? Existing theories argue that IGOs provide information, solve commitment problems, and socialize states. I offer an alternative take, which highlights the distributive implications of IGO memberships. The international environment is both competitive and interdependent. If some states create a social surplus through institutionalized cooperation, then this may redefine the competitive landscape and create disadvantages for other states. First, IGOs typically advance principles, norms, rules, and policies that fit the ideologies of some actors better than others. Effective IGOs both increase coordination among members and intensify gaps with excluded parties. Second, IGOs sometimes insulate members from coercive sanctions and enhance opportunities for collective actions against outsiders. I examine two observable implications of this theory. Shared IGO memberships correlate with reduced conflict onset among pairs of states that include a major power but not among contiguous states or states involved in territorial disputes. Second, divergence in overall IGO membership portfolios correlates with conflict. An implication is that more IGOs do not necessarily mean more peace. IGO memberships affect the distribution of conflict.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Call for Papers:
Cognitive Sociology, Culture, and International Law
iCourts, Centre of Excellence for International Courts
University of Copenhagen
28-29 April 2017
The past few decades have seen growth in behavioural approaches in the social sciences. In this new behavioural revolution, cognitive psychology, behavioural economics, and sociologists of culture have all paid increasing attention to the role of cognition, focusing in the main on decision-making, both with regard to everyday routines and in the context of risk and uncertainty. This third workshop on the sociology of international law aims to break open the study of interactions between various cognitive processes and the formation, interpretation and implementation of international law.
Sociological work on culture and cognition is particularly promising here, with Bourdieu’s work in particular said to have “supercharged” a cognitive turn in sociology by emphasizing the formation and effects of habitus (Cerulo 2010). Yet sociological work on cognition extends beyond this. Research on cognition explains, for example, how people classify and make decisions based on their social contexts (Zerubavel 1997); how individuals draw on cultural schemas as a toolkit for action, both in settled and unsettled moments (Swidler 2001); how culture offers individuals skills, habits, and practices; the work of moral grammars, justifications, and reasoning styles such as analogies; how collective memory is built and sustained; and how beliefs and values motivate action. Some of this work in sociology also draws on related fields, prominently cognitive sociology, behavioural economics and neuroscience.
We believe that international law is a prime locale for bridging insights from this research on cognition with research on institutions. This would complement recent moves to draw together work in cognitive psychology and behavioural economics with the study of international relations (e.g., Hafner-Burton, Hughes and Victor 2013; Stein 2013). Our hope is to include papers that investigate both how individual cognition shapes institutions and how institutions shape cognition. We see these possibilities along several dimensions that we intend to explore at the workshop:
1. Decision-Making, Cognitive Bias, and Practices: Cognition is, primarily, an approach for studying decision-making and developing strategies for action. What can we learn from this field for international law? For instance, international adjudicators are frequently required to process and categorize volumes of information, and develop strategies for action in perceiving and processing the evidence. Similarly, certain international instruments aim to regulate some risky activities while bracketing other hazardous activities – raising questions over how risks are evaluated in international legal regulation and adjudication, a prime concern of research in cognitive psychology.
2. 'Optical communities', organizational identities and collective memories: Views of collective memory are central to the fast growing field of international criminal law. And beyond this, how would collective memories shape a collective identity of an international organization or alter members’ identities? The ‘optical communities’ (Zerubavel 1997) of which we are part affect cognitive processes, including how we attend to some features of reality, while leaving other aspects 'out of frame'. Similarly, how can we understand the cognitive elements that explain the social and professional trajectories of international legal actors: what underlies the international legal habitus? 'Is there an international legal habitus, and what forms does it take?
3. Communication, Routines, and Knowledge Formats: Underlying much of this is the question of how legal modes of thought and reasoning can be explored given what we know from research on decision-making, estimation, and cognitive biases. What role does analogical reasoning play in international law? What forms of justification are deployed in international legal settings? How would international organization norms qua language transform members’ communicative competence into administrative power? International organizations often engage “(metaphorical) framing” to facilitate meaning generation and schematization of knowledge. How do these legal forms of reasoning interact with cognitive biases and decision-making? And how do processes of anthropomorphization – whether of a state or an international organization – affect the work of international law by bestowing cognitive properties that presume intentionality and consciousness?
4. International law as a domain of expertise: International legal practices produce and disseminate expert knowledge, and many would agree that experts play significant parts in the drama of global governance, both by framing with world for ‘decision-makers’, and by interpreting and implementing their ‘decisions’. But more work is needed to map the modalities of their practice, and to reflect on alternative possibilities. Where does an acknowledgement of the centrality of expertise lead us in rethinking spaces and processes of global governance? What theoretical resources are available to lawyers to conceptualise the nature of ‘expertise’ and the roles that it plays in collective structures of governance? And what are the different forms and categories of ‘knowledge’ or ‘expertise’ which are particularly worth of scholarly attention?
Academics and experts in various stages of their careers are invited to submit abstract exploring various interactions between sociological cognitive processes and international law.
The workshop is hosted by iCourts, Centre of Excellence for International Courts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen on 28-29 April 2017.
Abstracts of no more than 300 words should be sent to Sungjoon Cho at <firstname.lastname@example.org>, by 1 November 2016, and must include the author’s name, affiliation, and full contact information. Decisions regarding inclusion in the workshop program will be sent by 15 December, 2016. Those presenting will be expected to provide short discussion papers (3,000-4,000 words) by 15 March, 2017.
We regret that we are unable to cover participants' travel and accommodation expenses. Limited assistance might be available for junior scholars who are unable to secure funding from other sources.
Mikael Madsen, iCourts, University of Copenhagen
Sungjoon Cho, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Moshe Hirsch, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Andrew Lang, London School of Economics
Ron Levi, University of Toronto
- Jus Cogens: Quo Vadis
- Maarten den Heijer & Harmen van der Wilt, Jus Cogens and the Humanization and Fragmentation of International Law
- Dinah Shelton, Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Jus Cogens
- Ulf Linderfalk, Understanding the Jus Cogens Debate: The Pervasive Influence of Legal Positivism and Legal Idealism
- Jean d’Aspremont, Jus Cogens as a Social Construct Without Pedigree
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, Audience and Authority—The Merit of the Doctrine of Jus Cogens
- Stefan Kadelbach, Genesis, Function and Identification of Jus Cogens Norms
- Thomas Kleinlein, Jus Cogens as the ‘Highest Law’? Peremptory Norms and Legal Hierarchies
- Elizabeth Santalla Vargas, In Quest of the Practical Value of Jus Cogens Norms
- Louis J. Kotzé, Constitutional Conversations in the Anthropocene: In Search of Environmental Jus Cogens Norms
- Cathryn Costello & Michelle Foster, Non-refoulement as Custom and Jus Cogens? Putting the Prohibition to the Test
- Thomas Cottier, Improving Compliance: Jus Cogens and International Economic Law
- Valentina Vadi, Jus Cogens in International Investment Law and Arbitration
- Dutch Practice in International Law
- Cedric Ryngaert, Immunities of International Organizations Before Domestic Courts: Reflections on the Collective Labour Case Against the European Patent Organization
- Roel Schutgens & Joost Sillen, Judicial Review on the Island of Saint Martin: An Example for The Kingdom of the Netherlands?
- Jasper Krommendijk, Between Pretence and Practice: The Dutch Response to Recommendations of International Human Rights Bodies
No law is neutral. Law is always a mirror of the value-system and the power structure underlying any given society at any point in time and international law has never been an exception to this rule. A different, and yet related matter, is the extent to which the law applies equally (or not) to all members of any given society, the extent to which these members participate as equals (or not) in the formation of international law and the extent to which the law is effectively (or not) applied in an objective and un-biased manner (what is, commonly known, as 'neutrally') by international bodies and adjudicators charged with applying it to international situations or with settling disputes between any given parties. The aspiration towards 'neutrality' (as such conceived) of international law in its quest for an ever-greater legitimacy, has, undoubtedly, evolved throughout different historical periods.
Neutrality in the history of international law can, on the other hand, also be understood as a legal institution. Neutrality as a legal institution was born as a synonym for emancipation from a rigorous moral top-down juridical-moral framework inherited from theology. Its theoretical blossoming went in parallel with the consolidation of the principle of sovereign equality of nations and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs during the transition of the classical law of nations to modern international law. Since the establishment of the first international institutions with universal and permanent character, neutrality as a legal institution has continued to evolve against the background provided by the ever-shifting chessboard of international relations and proliferating international institutions.
Finally, the relationship of neutrality and the history of international law can be also examined through the lenses of the neutrality (or lack of) of history writing itself. If all history is, as B. Croce noted, contemporary history (by which it is generally meant that all history writing is, in one degree or other, done from the perspective of the present and also that all history writing constitutes an intervention in the present) could any historical account possibly aspire to be considered a 'neutral' history of international law? And, if so, under what criteria?
The Interest Group of the History of International Law welcomes abstracts that engage critically with any of these dimensions of neutrality in the history of international law or a combination thereof in historical perspective by reference to relevant episodes in the history of international law and/or different historiographical schools.
Each submission should include:
- An abstract of no more than 400 words, the intended language of presentation,
- A short curriculum vitae containing the author’s name, institutional affiliation, contact information and e-mail address.
Applications should be submitted to both Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral (email@example.com); and Frederik Dhondt (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 15th December 2016. All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process by 15th January 2017.
Selection will be based on scholarly merit and with regard to producing an engaging workshop, without prejudice to gender, seniority, language or geographical location. Please note that the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law is unable to provide funds to cover the conference registration fee or related transport and accommodation costs.
- Fatou Bensouda, Foreword
- Rain Liivoja & Tim McCormack, Introduction
- Dino Kritsiotis, War and Armed Conflict: The Parameters of Enquiry
- Frits Kalshoven, The History of International Humanitarian Law Treaty-Making
- Caitlin Dwyer & Tim McCormack, Conflict Characterisation
- Jann Kleffner, Sources of the Law of Armed Conflict
- Nobuo Hayashi, Basic Principles
- Noam Lubell & Nancie Prud’homme, Impact of Human Rights Law
- Combatants Emily Crawford
- David Turns, Military Objectives
- Emanuela Chiara-Gillard, Protection of Civilians in the Conduct of Hostilities
- Michelle Lesh, Direct Participation in Hostilities
- Mirko Sossai, Conventional Weapons
- Robert J Mathews, Chemical and Biological Weapons
- Dieter Fleck, Nuclear Weapons in International Law
- William J Fenrick, Methods of Land Warfare
- David Letts & Rob McLaughlin, Law of Naval Warfare
- Ian Henderson & Patrick Keane, Air and Missile Warfare
- Chris Jenks, Detention under the Law of Armed Conflict
- James P Benoit, Wounded and Sick, and Medical Services
- Helen Durham & Eve Massingham, Women and War
- John Tobin & Elliot Luke, Children and the Law of Armed Conflict: Looking beyond the Protection Paradigm
- Jadranka Petrovic, Cultural Property
- Roberta Arnold, The Protection of the Environment
- Alison Duxbury, The Protection of Humanitarian Relief: The Legal Framework
- Daphna Shraga, The Applicability of the Laws of Armed Conflict to Peacekeeping Operations
- Eyal Benvenisti, Occupation and Territorial Administration
- Elizabeth Chadwick, Neutrality Revisited
- Kelisiana Thynne, The Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross
- Shane Darcy, Reciprocity and Reprisals
- Charles Garraway, State Responsibility
- Bruce Oswald & Bethany Wellington, Reparations for Violations in Armed Conflict and the Emerging Practice of Making Amends
- Rob Cryer, Individual Liability in International Law
- Sasha Radin & Michael N Schmitt, Investigations under International Humanitarian Law
- Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, Role of International Courts and Tribunals
- Luis Benavides, Universal Jurisdiction over War Crimes
- Rain Liivoja, Kobi-Renée Leins & Tim McCormack, Emerging Technologies of Warfare
- Nelleke van Amstel & Rain Liivoja, Private Military and Security Companies
- Louise Arimatsu, The Rule of Law in War: A Liberal Project
Sunday, August 28, 2016
- Special Issue: Wild Animals and Justice
- Marilyn Matevia, Justice for All: Revisiting the Prospects for a Biocommunitarian Theory of Interspecies Justice
- Lisa Kemmerer, Ethics and Eating Fishes
- Helen Kopnina, Wild Animals and Justice: The Case of the Dead Elephant in the Room
- Jason Wyckoff, Hierarchy, Global Justice, and Human–Animal Relations
- Vishrut Kansal, The Curious Case of Nagaraja in India: Are Animals Still Regarded as “Property” With No Claim Rights?
For years, tobacco interests have played an important role in developing international law. Recently, cooperation among nations concerned with the risks and health consequences of smoking tobacco has resulted in the adoption of international treaties, regional directives, and common administrative and regulatory practices. As a result, a wave of litigation before international courts and tribunals, including the European and Andean Courts of Justice, Investor-State Tribunals, and the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement body, has led to novel legal questions.
This Article is the first to trace, survey, and recount the history of tobacco litigation before international courts and tribunals and to assess its contribution to international law. In particular, it pays new attention to recent efforts by tobacco interests to challenge compelled speech by exporting the far-reaching Free Speech Clause of the United States into international law, especially in the context of marketing controls, mandatory graphic warnings, and “plain packaging” labels.
This Article shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, international courts and tribunals can play a central role in advancing and enhancing complex national, regional, and global regulations rather than eroding sovereign regulatory space. Complete deference to states’ policies, however, can also be risky as it may perpetuate the use of economic and political influence to distort the functioning of government. Hence, the history of international tobacco litigation reveals a more complex interrelationship between domestic institutions and international law than many scholars acknowledge.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
- Symposium: Constitution and Custom: Women’s Rights and Access to Justice in Pluralist Societies
- Rangita de Silva de Alwis & Indira Jaising, The Role of Personal Laws in Creating a “Second Sex”
- Esmeralda Lopez & Melissa Hastings, Overlooked and Unprotected: Central American Indigenous Migrant Women in Mexico
- Rachel Sieder, Legal Pluralism and Indigenous Women’s Rights in Mexico: The Ambiguities of Recognition
- Symposium: Women Confronting ISIS: Local Strategies and States’ Responsibilities
- Charlotte Bunch, Listing to the Women: Human Rights in Conflict Situations – Opening Remarks
- Lisa Davis, ISIL, the Syrian Conflict, Sexual Violence, and the Way Forward: Syrian Women’s Inclusion in the Peace Processes
- Jessica Stern, The U.N. Security Council’s Arria-Formula Meeting on Vulnerable Groups in Conflict: ISIL’s Targeting of LGMTI Individuals
- Yifat Susskind & Yunar Mohammed, Why True Legal Victories for Human Rights Depend on Grassroots Activists
- Madeleine Ross & Christine Chinkin, Exposing the Gendered Myth of Post-Conflict Transition: The Transformative Power of Economic and Social Rights
Friday, August 26, 2016
- Forum: The Conflict in Ukraine and the ›Weakness‹ of International Law
- Christian Marxsen, International Law in Crisis: Russia's Struggle for Recognition
- Focus: Cyber-Security Beyond the Military Perspective
- Martin Ney & Andreas Zimmermann, Cyber-Security Beyond the Military Perspective: International Law, ›Cyberspace‹, and the Concept of Due Diligence
- Christian Walter, Obligations of States Before, During, and After a Cyber Security Incident
- Oliver Dörr, Obligations of the State of Origin of a Cyber Security Incident
- August Reinisch & Markus Beham, Mitigating Risks: Inter-State Due Diligence Obligations in Case of Harmful Cyber Incidents and Malicious Cyber Activity – Obligations of the Transit State
- Robert Kolb, Reflections on Due Diligence Duties and Cyberspace
- Jutta Brunnée & Tamar Meshel, Teaching an Old Law New Tricks: International Environmental Law Lessons for Cyberspace Governance
- Matthias Herdegen, Possible Legal Framework and Regulatory Models for Cyberspace: Due Diligence Obligations and Institutional Models for Enhanced Inter-State Cooperation
- General Articles
- Eckart Klein & David Kretzmer, The UN Human Rights Committee: The General Comments – The Evolution of an Autonomous Monitoring Instrument
- Alex G. Oude Elferink, International Law and Negotiated and Adjudicated Maritime Boundaries: A Complex Relationship
- Harald Kleinschmidt, Decolonisation, State Succession, and a Formal Problem of International Public Law
- Marco Longobardo, The Palestinian Right to Exploit the Dead Sea Coastline for Tourism
- Fenghua Li, Safeguarding State Sovereignty: The Relevance of Post-Award Remedies in ICSID and Non-ICSID Arbitration
- Laura Salvadego, Witness Protection and Inter-State Cooperation: Current and Emerging Challenges in the Fight Against Transnational Organised Crime
- German Practice
- Elisa Oezbek, Strengthening the Human Rights Council: The 2015 Presidency of German Ambassador Joachim Rücker
- Hendrik Selle, Confronting the Destruction of Cultural Heritage Used as a Tactic of War: A German-Iraqi Initiative in the UN General Assembly
- Stephanie Schlickewei, The Deployment of the German Armed Forces to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
- Henning Büttner & Marvin Schwope, The Aftermath of Prism: The International Legal Framework for Surveillance and the Radius of Operation for German Intelligence Agencies from a Human Rights Perspective
- Sarah Bothe & Charlotte Gaschke, Germany's Proposal of a »Grexit auf Zeit«
- Jens T. Theilen, Towards Acceptance of Religious Pluralism: The Federal Constitutional Court's Second Judgment on Muslim Teachers Wearing Headscarves
- Gilles Cuniberti, La Lex Mercatoria au XXIe siècle, Une analyse empirique et économique,
- Christelle Chalas, Contrats de mariage et nuptial agreements : vers une acculturation réciproque ? Regards croisés entre la France et l’Angleterre (étude de droit comparé, de droit international privé et de droit interne)
- Louis Savadogo, Déni de justice et responsabilité internationale de l’État pour les actes de ses juridictions
- Pierre Gannagé, Allocution de remerciement, Quelques propos sur la coexistence juridique des cultures
- Maurice Kamto, La nature juridique du compromis en tant qu'acte de saisine d'une instance juridictionnelle internationale: contribution à l'étude de l'acte juridique international
- Thibaut Fleury Graff, Accords de libre-échange et territoires occupés: a propos de l'arrêt TPIUE, 10 décembre 2015, Front Polisario c. Conseil
- Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto, L'accord commercial entre l'UE et ses Etats membres d'une part, et le Pérou et la Colombie d'autre part : un révélateur de deux maladies du droit international actuel
- Nabil Hajjami, La sentence arbitrale du 18 mars 2015: Maurice c. Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord
- Symposium on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
- Michael J. Matheson & Natalie L. Reid, Editors' Introduction
- Michael J. Matheson & David Scheffer, The Creation of the Tribunals
- Darryl Robinson & Gillian MacNeil, The Tribunals and the Renaissance of International Criminal Law: Three Themes
- Sara Kendall & Sarah M. H. Nouwen, Speaking of Legacy: Toward an Ethos of Modesty at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Marko Milanović, The Impact of the ICTY on the Former Yugoslavia: An Anticipatory Postmortem
- In Memoriam
- Donald McRae, John H. Jackson (1932–2015)
- Notes and Comments
- Congyan Cai, International Law in Chinese Courts During the Rise of China
- Daniel Bodansky, The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?
- International Decisions
- Jacob Katz Cogan, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
- Björn Arp, Charanne B.V. v. Spain
- James Thuo Gathii, National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre
- Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, “Treaty Override”
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Kristina Daugirdas & Julian Davis Mortenson, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Recent Books on International Law
- K.J. Keith, reviewing The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, edited by Donald R. Rothwell, Alex G. Oude Elferink, Karen N. Scott, and Tim Stephens
- Dinah Shelton, reviewing Peremptory International Law—Jus Cogens: A General Inventory, by Robert Kolb; and Jus Cogens: International Law and Social Contract, by Thomas Weatherall
- William E. Butler, reviewing Russian Approaches to International Law, by Lauri Mälksoo
- Christina M. Cerna, reviewing Religious Actors and International Law, by Ioana Cismas
- Sergio Puig, reviewing Sugar and the Making of International Trade Law, by Michael Fakhri
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Call for Papers - Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 19 (2016)
General theme: Armed Groups
Most of today’s armed conflicts are fought between armed groups and State forces. The term armed groups covers a huge variety of different organisations: militias, warlord factions and highly organised (terrorist) groups, such as the organisation that calls itself Islamic State. Their role challenges the traditionally state-oriented character of international law: are the rules on the use of force still adequate for dealing with the threat of violent non-state actors? Do we need a definition or criteria for determining what constitutes an armed group? How can compliance of such groups with international humanitarian law be improved? How can responsibilities of such groups, in times of conflict, be established under general public international law?
The general theme of Vol. 19 of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (YIHL) will therefore look at these and other challenges arising from the participation of armed groups in contemporary armed conflicts.
In addition to this general theme, there is of course also the possibility to submit articles on international humanitarian law topics not related to this general theme.
Interested authors should send their submission, related to the above general theme, or to another international humanitarian law topic of relevance in today’s world, before 1 October 2016, to the Managing Editor of the YIHL, Dr. Christophe Paulussen (email@example.com). Articles should be submitted in conformity with the YIHL guidelines. The Editorial Board aims to publish Vol. 19 (2016) at the end of the ensuing year, in December 2017 at the latest.
Conference: Liability, Immunity, and the Benefits of War: New Perspectives on the Moral Status of Civilians
A key task for revisionist just war theory has been to investigate the conditions under which individual agents can come to lose their rights against non-consensual harm. By and large, Just War Theorists recognize forfeiture arising from moral or causal responsibility for a wrongful threat as the central mechanism by which one can lose rights. Recently, however, a number of theorists have suggested that rights against harm can be lost or weakened in other ways besides forfeiture. One proposal is that agents can come to lack rights against harm in virtue of their involuntarily incurred enforceable duties. Another is that agents can have their rights against harm weakened when these rights make other non-liable agents worse off. A third attempt notes that if one is an expected beneficiary of a harmful preventive action, one might have weakened rights against collateral harm compared to other uninvolved agents. Relatedly, another proposal suggests that agents who fail to disgorge benefits derived from injustice can come to lose rights against preventive harm.
These proposals attempt to provide new justifications for inflicting non-consensual harm beyond the familiar conceptions of forfeiture and lesser evil. Further, they challenge the orthodox view that causal contribution to a wrongful threat is necessary for the loss or weakening of an agent’s rights against harm. As such, they all have potentially radical implications for the rights of bystanders (and, by extension, civilians’ moral immunity to intentional harming in war). A central aim of the conference, then, will be to assess whether and to what extent individuals can lose rights against harm through circumstances entirely beyond their control.
We will also explore the related question of whether these ways of weakening or losing one’s rights are restricted to rights against certain types of harm. For example, we might think that these justifications cannot weaken our rights against the infliction of direct physical harm, but can nevertheless weaken our rights against other sorts of harm, such as harms imposed by cyber attacks, boycotts and sanctions, and invasions of privacy through surveillance. This work thus has implications for the range of permissible means of fighting wars.
Call for Papers
Regional Human Rights Systems in Crisis
Wisconsin International Law Journal Annual Symposium
March 31, 2017, University of Wisconsin Law School
Regional human rights systems have been heralded as one of the greatest innovations of the project of global governance. However, there are a host of urgent issues — of growing importance to social justice and human well-being — that pose fundamental challenges to the more developed regional systems, even as they make it harder for newer regional systems to develop. It is unclear, for example, how well these systems grapple with questions of economic inequality, climate change, migration crises and organized non-state violence. They are challenged as well by Brexit, the turn toward nationalistic ideologies, and other criticisms of globalization. In this Symposium, we explore how and whether regional human rights systems can constructively engage in these challenging times. We include not just the developed systems of Europe, Africa, and the Americas, but also the new and less judicialized systems of Asia and the Middle East. Taken together, the conference allows us to ask anew the question of what are human rights, and where do human rights inscribed at the regional level take us in the contemporary era.
Some themes that may be addressed include:
- Political stand-offs in the more well-developed systems: Brexit, the European Union and the Council of Europe System, the Inter-American Commission in crisis; the African Union versus the International Criminal Court
- The challenges of constructing regional human rights in Asia and the Middle East
- The pros and cons of the state liability model in facing issues of migration; terrorism; corporate liability; transboundary harm, internet privacy, international crimes
- Human Rights versus Buen Vivir, Occupy, religions, and other discourses concerned with social, political, and legal justice
- Universal (UN-based) versus regional human rights protection
Submissions & Guidelines
WILJ invites submission of abstracts of not more than 500 words from legal scholars and practitioners in the fields of regional human rights and international law. The submission deadline is September 15, 2016, and applicants will be notified by October 10, 2016. Upon selection, the complete articles (an approximate minimum of 10,000 words) shall be submitted by January 15, 2017, for final review. Authors of articles selected at the final review stage will be invited to present at the 2017 WILJ Annual Symposium on March, 31, 2017, at the University of Wisconsin Law School, and their articles will be published in our 2017 Symposium issue. By presenting at the Symposium, speakers commit to publishing their articles with WILJ, and the final drafts shall be submitted by April 30, 2017. Travel (economy class) and accommodation will be covered for accepted applicants. Submission is restricted to papers that have not yet been published.
Please submit your abstract and your CV by the deadline to: firstname.lastname@example.org
For inquiries, please e-mail Emmeline Lee at: email@example.com
September 15, 2016 — Abstract submission deadline
October 10, 2016 — Chosen applicants notified
January 15, 2017 — Completed (but not final) article submission deadline
March 31, 2017 — WILJ Symposium
April 30, 2017 — FINAL article submission deadline
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
- Robert McCorquodale & Jean-Pierre Gauci, From Grotius to Higgins: British Influences on International Law from 1915–2015
- Antonios Tzanakapoulos, The Influence of English Courts on the Development of International Law
- Kate Jones, Marking Foreign Policy by Justice: The Legal Advisers to the Foreign Office, 1876–1953
- Philip Allott, Britain and Europe: Managing Revolution
- Stephen Samuel, British Influences on the Ideals of International Lawyers
- Kasey McCall-Smith, British influence on the law of treaties
- Martin Clark, British Contributions to the concept of recognition during the inter-war period: Williams, Baty and Lauterpacht
- Philippa Webb, British Contribution to the Law of State Immunity
- David H. Anderson, British Influence on the Law of the Sea 1915–2015
- Mario Prost & Yoriko Otomo, British influences on international environmental law: the case of wildlife conservation
- Merris Amos, The Influence of British Courts on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
- Nigel S. Rodley, The Contribution of British NGOs to the Development of International Law
- Amina Higgins & Noelle Adanan, Britain’s Influence on the Regulation of the Slave Trade in the Twentieth Century
- Nicholas Tsagourias, Contribution of British International Lawyers to the Law on the Use of Force
- Matthew Garrod, The British Influence on the development of the laws of war and the punishment of war criminals: from the Grotius Society to the United Nations War Crimes Commission
- Shavana Musa, The British and the Nuremburg Trials
- James Upcher, Neutral and Beligerent Rights: the development of a British Position?
- Anne Marie Brennan, Historical Reflections on the Criminalisation of Terrorism under International Law from the League of Nations to R v. Mohammed Gul: How Britain has Swollen the Tide of Obscurity
- Richard Collins, The Progressive Conception of International Law: Brierly and Lauterpacht in the Interbellum Period
- Robert Cryer, International Law and the Illusion of Novelty: Georg Schwarzenberger
- Gerry Simpson, Juridical Intervention: Martin Wight as International Lawyer
- Philippe Sands & Arman Sarvarian, The Contribution of the UK Bar to International Courts
This book provides an international legal analysis of the most important questions regarding Iran's nuclear program since 2002. Setting these legal questions in their historical and diplomatic context, this book aims to clarify how the relevant sources of international law - including primarily the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and IAEA treaty law - should be properly applied in the context of the Iran case. It provides an instructional case study of the application of these sources of international law, the lessons which can be applied to inform both the on-going legal and diplomatic dynamics surrounding the Iran nuclear dispute itself, as well as similar future cases. Some questions raised regard the watershed diplomatic accord reached between Iran and Western states in July, 2015, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action. The answers will be of interests to diplomats and academics, as well as to anyone who is interested in understanding international law's application to this sensitive dispute in international relations.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
- Special Section: The Paris Agreement on Climate Change
- Radoslav S. Dimitrov, The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind Closed Doors
- Thomas Hale, “All Hands on Deck”: The Paris Agreement and Nonstate Climate Action
- Shannon K. Orr, Institutional Control and Climate Change Activism at COP 21 in Paris
- Noelle E. Selin, Teaching and Learning from Environmental Summits: COP 21 and Beyond
- Research Articles
- Sikina Jinnah & Abby Lindsay, Diffusion Through Issue Linkage: Environmental Norms in US Trade Agreements
- Robert Gampfer, Minilateralism or the UNFCCC? The Political Feasibility of Climate Clubs
- Kirsten Rodine-Hardy, Nanotechnology and Global Environmental Politics: Transatlantic Divergence
- Alexander Ovodenko, Governing Oligopolies: Global Regimes and Market Structure
- Stavros Afionis, Lindsay C. Stringer, Nicola Favretto, Julia Tomei, & Marcos S. Buckeridge, Unpacking Brazil’s Leadership in the Global Biofuels Arena: Brazilian Ethanol Diplomacy in Africa
- Book Review Essay
- Dustin Evan Garrick, The Hydropolitics of the Nile Revisited: Elites, Experts, and Everyday Practices in Egypt and Sudan
- Abdus Samad, The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and International Law
- Bugalo Maripe, Contempt of Court in Facie Curiae; Problems of Justification, Application and Control with Reference to the Situation in Botswana
- Amissi Manirabona & Eduardo Saad Diniz, Towards Efficiency in Attributing Criminal Liability to Corporations: Canadian and Brazilian Regimes Compared
- Leanid Kazyrytski, Latvian SS-Legion: Past and Present. Some Issues Regarding the Modern Glorification of Nazism
- Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet, Le droit international de la reconnaissance
- Jean d’Aspremont, De la reconnaissance à l’anthropomorphisme en droit international
- Robert Howse, “Kojevian” Recognition and Contemporary International Law
- Charalambos Apostolidis, Le droit international de la reconnaissance comme champ de recherche. Réflexions autour de l’ouvrage d’Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet « Qu’est-ce qu’une société internationale juste ? »
- Olivier de Frouville, La lutte pour la reconnaissance : une nouvelle théorie explicative de l’évolution du droit international ? A propos de « Pour une société internationale juste. Entre droit du développement et reconnaissance », d’Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet
- Albane Geslin, De l’entre-soi à l’entre-autre(s). Enjeux et ambiguités de la reconnaissance internationale des droits des peuples autochtones
- Carlos-Miguel Herrera, La reconnaissance par les droits (en partant des droits sociaux)
- Emmanuel Decaux, La reconnaissance des droits culturels
- Livia Kummer, Legal Recognition of Historic Crimes in the Present Day: Case Study of the Katyń Massacre
- Jose Manuel Coelho, Réflexion(s) sur les crimes de l’histoire et le droit international de la reconnaissance
- Cécile de Caunes & Juan Branco, Les reconnaissances juridiques des afro-descendants
- Noura Kridis, Droit de la reconnaissance dans le cadre des révoltes arabes
- Horatia Muir Watt, La reconnaissance entre philosophie politique et droit international privé : un rendez-vous manqué ?
- Paul Lagarde, Introduction au thème de la reconnaissance des situations : rappel des points les plus discutés
- Ivana Isailovic, La reconnaissance politique en droit transnational : les identités, les marginalisations et le droit international privé
- Dominique Gaurier, La vision de l’autre, étranger ou non européen à travers le regard des auteurs classiques du droit international
Monday, August 22, 2016
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
The Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ) (formerly the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal run by members of the postgraduate community at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law. The Editorial Board is pleased to invite submissions for its sixth volume.
General call for submissions – International law
The Board welcomes long articles, short articles, case notes and book reviews that engage with current themes in international law and EU law. All submissions are subject to double-blind peer review by our Editorial Board. In addition, all long articles are sent to our Academic Review Board, which consists of distinguished international law scholars and practitioners. A full list of reviewers is available at this link.
The deadline for submissions is 28th October 2016 at 11.59 p.m.
Submissions received by this date will be considered for publication in Volume 6, Issue 1, to be published in Spring 2017.
To submit, please follow this link.
Further submission information
The Journal accepts the following types of manuscript:
Long Articles between 6,000 and 10,000 words but not exceeding 12,000 words including footnotes; Short Articles not exceeding 6,000 words including footnotes; Case Notes, including substantive analysis, not exceeding 3000 words including footnotes; and Book Reviews not exceeding 2500 words including footnotes.
Please list the word count of the text and the footnotes on your manuscript.
All copies must be submitted in Word (.doc) or (.docx) format and must conform to our style guidelines, which are available at the following links:
Please ensure that your manuscript does not contain any reference to your personal or professional identity.
Further information is available here.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
- Photini Pazartzis, La succession d’États comme moyen de régulation des relations internationales
- Hélène De Pooter, Place et rôle de la France à l’UNESCO : quelques observations à la suite du rapport Janicot
- Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, L’État, le coup d’État et l’Union africaine
- Franck Latty, Ploutocratie et personnalité juridique internationale
- La revanche de l’État dans l’arbitrage transnational Tullio TREVES
- Aurélie Tardieu, Face à une théorie féministe du droit international, une objection au féminin
- Jean Combacau, L’objection à la formation et à l’opposabilité des règles internationales – le volontarisme a-t-il encore un intérêt ?
- Géraldine Giraudeau, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon : de la guerre de la morue à la bataille de l’or noir
- Karel Wellens, Le gendarme se marie. Un conte d’amour, de jalousie et de tromperie
- Athina Chanaki, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? La responsabilité des organisations internationales pour les violations des droits de l’homme
- Fabien Lafouasse, « Le silence est d’or » : Réflexions juridiques sur l’espionnage entre États
- Lucie Delabie, Gentlemen’s agreements et autres arrangements informels : la politique au secours du droit international ?
- Saïda El Boudouhi, L’enseignement du droit international à l’université : quel intérêt ?
- Sabrina Robert-Cuendet, Le bestiaire du droit international (ou la fable de l’animal voulant trouver sa place parmi les hommes et les États)
- Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe, Témoignage : les droits de l’homme très confidentiels à l’UNESCO
- Evelyne Lagrange, Le bon genre. Les organisations internationales côté femmes
- Massimo Iovane, Quelle efficacité du jus cogens dans la protection des droits de l’homme ?
- Sarah Cassella, Ambiguïtés de la faveur dans la construction d’un « système » normatif : les clauses de la protection la plus favorable
- Geneviève Bastid Burdeau, Conclusions
- Pierre Michel Eisemann, Encore Quelques Mots…