- Damon Barrett, International Child Rights Mechanisms and the Death Penalty for Drug Offences
- Cristy Clark, Of What Use is a Deradicalized Human Right to Water?
- Vian Dakhil, Aldo Zammit Borda, & Alexander R. J. Murray, ‘Calling ISIL Atrocities Against the Yezidis by Their Rightful Name’: Do They Constitute the Crime of Genocide?
- Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez, Is French laïcité Still Liberal? The Republican Project under Pressure (2004–15)
- Erica Howard, Freedom of Speech versus Freedom of Religion? The Case of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders
- Başak Bağlayan & Johannes Hendrik Fahner, ‘One Can Always Do Better’: The Referral Procedure before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Why have countries increasingly restricted immigration even when they have opened their markets to foreign competition through trade or allowed their firms to move jobs overseas? In Trading Barriers, Margaret Peters argues that the increased ability of firms to produce anywhere in the world combined with growing international competition due to lowered trade barriers has led to greater limits on immigration.
Peters explains that businesses relying on low-skill labor have been the major proponents of greater openness to immigrants. Immigration helps lower costs, making these businesses more competitive at home and abroad. However, increased international competition, due to lower trade barriers and greater economic development in the developing world, has led many businesses in wealthy countries to close or move overseas. Productivity increases have allowed those firms that have chosen to remain behind to do more with fewer workers. Together, these changes in the international economy have sapped the crucial business support necessary for more open immigration policies at home, empowered anti-immigrant groups, and spurred greater controls on migration.
Debunking the commonly held belief that domestic social concerns are the deciding factor in determining immigration policy, Trading Barriers demonstrates the important and influential role played by international trade and capital movements.
- Robert W. Emerson, An International Model for Vicarious Liability in Franchising
- Daniel Francis, Exit Legitimacy
- Vera Korzun, The Right to Regulate in Investor-State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Regulatory Carve-Outs
- Peter Tzeng, Humanitarian Intervention at the Margins: An Examination of Recent Incidents
- Daniel Abebe, Does International Human Rights Law in African Courts Make a Difference?
- Kishanthi Parella, The Stewardship of Trust in the Global Value Chain
- Serio Puig, Blinding International Justice
Schniederjahn: Das Verschwindenlassen von Personen in der Rechtsprechung internationaler Menschenrechtsgerichtshöfe
Das Verschwindenlassen von Personen ist wohl eines der grausamsten Menschenrechtsverbrechen der Neuzeit und zugleich das unbekannteste. Unter dem Verschwindenlassen versteht man jede Freiheitsentziehung durch Staatsbedienstete oder andere Personen, die mit Unterstützung oder Duldung des Staates handeln, gefolgt von der Weigerung, den Freiheitsentzug anzuerkennen und über den Verbleib des Opfers Auskunft zu geben. Oftmals endet das Verschwindenlassen für die betroffene Person mit dem Tod, ohne dass jemals ein Leichnam gefunden wird und die Angehörigen Gewissheit über das Schicksal des Opfers erhalten. Die Arbeit vergleicht die rasch anwachsende Judikatur des Inter-Amerikanischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu diesem Verbrechen. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Beweislastverteilung. Zudem wird der Beitrag der Gerichtshöfe zur Aufarbeitung, Verfolgung und Verhinderung des Verschwindenlassens, insbesondere am Beispiel Perus, untersucht.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
There is widespread agreement that status or standing in the international system is a critical element in world politics. The desire for status is recognized as a key factor in nuclear proliferation, the rise of China, and other contemporary foreign policy issues, and has long been implicated in foundational theories of international relations and foreign policy. Despite the consensus that status matters, we lack a basic understanding of status dynamics in international politics. The first book to comprehensively examine this subject, Fighting for Status presents a theory of status dissatisfaction that delves into the nature of prestige in international conflicts and specifies why states want status and how they get it.
What actions do status concerns trigger, and what strategies do states use to maximize or salvage their standing? When does status matter, and under what circumstances do concerns over relative position overshadow the myriad other concerns that leaders face? In examining these questions, Jonathan Renshon moves beyond a focus on major powers and shows how different states construct status communities of peer competitors that shift over time as states move up or down, or out, of various groups.
Combining innovative network-based statistical analysis, historical case studies, and a lab experiment that uses a sample of real-world political and military leaders, Fighting for Status provides a compelling look at the causes and consequences of status on the global stage.
- Editorial Comment
- Hans Köchler, Justice and Realpolitik: The Predicament of the International Criminal Court
- Nina H.B. Jørgensen, Complicity in Torture in a Time of Terror: Interpreting the European Court of Human Rights Extraordinary Rendition Cases
- Xiaohui Wu, Friendly Competition for Co-Progressive Development: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank vs. the Bretton Woods Institutions
- Gbenga T. Oduntan, Legal and Evidential Implications of Emerging Satellite Imagery of Ancient African Relict Boundaries
- Sherzod Shadikhodjaev, The “Regionalism vs Multilateralism” Issue in International Trade Law: Revisiting the Peru–Agricultural Products Case
Recent decades have witnessed the growing malaise of multilateralism within international economic governance and an inclination for bilateralism and tailor-made solutions. And yet procedural multilateralism does exist in international investment law. The ICSID Convention is a multilateral treaty, and UNCITRAL’s Mauritius Convention, is multilateral – or at least of multilateral ambition. Some limited subject-matter multilateral initiatives also exist outside international investment law and offer inspiration in this respect. This paper assesses the Mauritius Convention and the OECD’s Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), in order to draw inspiration for the European Union’s multilateral investment court. Its emphasis is on recent developments, in light of the EU’s 2017 public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution. It argues that while the UNCUTRAL and OECD examples of ‘retroactively’ reforming thousands of existing treaties can offer useful guidance, the establishment of a multilateral investment court ‘applicable’ to existing IIAs would require two instruments: a convention regulating the relationship between IIAs and the multilateral investment court, and a standalone convention (the statute) on the multilateral investment court; and that only the first of these instruments can draw on the UNCITRAL and OECD precedents.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Conference: TTIP and Beyond . . . Negotiating and Implementing the EU's Free Trade Agreements in an Uncertain Environment
Call for Papers: The Emergence of New and Dynamic China-Africa Economic Relationships: International Economic Law Perspectives
Sunday, May 21, 2017
- Michael A. Becker & Cecily Rose, Investigating the Value of Site Visits in Inter-State Arbitration and Adjudication
- Luiz Gustavo Meira Moser, Inside Contracting Parties’ Minds: The Decision-making Processes in Cross-border Sales
- Michal Swarabowicz, Identity of Claims in Investment Arbitration: A Plea for Unity of the Legal System
- Vincent-Joël Proulx, An Incomplete Revolution: Enhancing the Security Council’s Role in Enforcing Counterterrorism Obligations
- Brian McGarry, The Development of Custom in Territorial Dispute Settlement
- Jean d’Aspremont, The International Court of Justice and the Irony of System-Design
- Stefan Talmon, The South China Sea Arbitration and the Finality of ‘Final’ Awards
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Newton: An Assessment of the Legality of Arms Sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Context of the Conflict in Yemen
This White Paper analyzes U.S. statutory obligations regarding arms sales and military assistance to Saudi Arabia in the context of the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The United States has provided significant support for Saudi Arabia, including over $115 billion in arms sales over the last eight years. During the course of hostilities conducted by a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen over the last two years, the United States has provided billions of dollars of equipment for use in Yemen and provided in-flight re-fueling to support bombing operations. In light of credible allegations of widespread violations of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict resulting in significant civilian casualties over the last two years, concerns have been raised about the legality of further arms sales under U.S. law. In the face of persistent reports of wrongdoing, Saudi Arabia has failed to rebut allegations or provide detailed evidence of compliance with binding obligations arising from international humanitarian law. In the context of multiple credible reports of recurring and highly questionable strikes, even after Saudi units received training and equipment to reduce civilian casualties, the United States cannot continue to rely on Saudi assurances that it will comply with international law and agreements concerning the use of U.S.-origin equipment. Under these circumstances, further sales under both the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act are prohibited until the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes effective measures to ensure compliance with international law and the President submits relevant certifications to the Congress. Congress should utilize the expedited review procedures of both Acts to ensure compliance with the law.
- Raj Bhala, Exposing the Forgotten TPP Chapter: Chapter 17 as a Model for Future International Trade Disciplines on SOEs
- Maureen Irish, Development, Reciprocity and the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
- Rawan Al-Louzi, Bilateral Investment Treaties as Tools for Enhancing Foreign Investment Climate and Increasing Competitiveness
- Anna Chadwick, World Hunger, the 'Global' Food Crisis, and (International) Law
- Ozue Vivian Adaeze, The Decision-Making Process of the WTO in Relation to Developing Countries
Friday, May 19, 2017
- Articles and Commentaries
- Amos Enabulele, Multilateral Treaties and the Effects of the Universality of Customs on State Consent
- Kate Deere, Investment in China’s FTAs: How Well has the FTA with New Zealand Held Up?
- Saeed Bagheri, Iran’s Attitude to Security in the Strait of Hormuz: An International Law Perspective
- Geoffrey Palmer, Whales and Humans: How Whaling went from being a Major Industry to a Leading Environmental Issue then Landed Japan in the International Court of Justice for the First Time
- Gillian Triggs, Human Rights Across the Tasman: A Widening Gulf – Hotung Fellowship Public Lecture, 6 April 2016
- The South Pacific
- Joanna Siekiera, The Pacific Islands Forum 2015, Port Moresby
- Charles Hulley, TPPA No ... Wait: The Scope of Fair and Equitable Treatment
- Tracey Whare, Customary Law and Human Rights in the Pacific – Potential for Convergence or Inevitable Conflict?
The Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered into force in 2002. Now, the ICC faces its most significant challenge -- the prospect of a mass exodus by African countries. Complaints of institutional bias against African leaders, supported by a general critique of western superintendency attaching to international law’s long and close association with colonialism (the mission civilisatrice), haunt the future of atrocity accountability in Africa. Borrowing from the critique of the western juridical tradition, as framed by the spectral imagery of Jacques Derrida and applied as critique to international criminal law by Kamari Maxine Clarke, this Article reshapes that discussion by situating the discussion of atrocity accountability also within the framework of the neopatrimonial state and the lingering ethnographic presence of the politicized Big Man. Post-colonial and ethnographic narratives are then set against the vibrant and less discussed backdrop of African civil society to forward cautious support for the progressive development of the ICC in Africa owing to effective modalities supporting the ICC’s principle of complementarity below the formal structures of the state.
What is international criminal justice? The authors of this book set out a framework for understanding international criminal justice in all its facets. Considering both definition and content, the authors argue for its treatment as a holistic field of study, rather than a by-product of international criminal law.
Adopting a multidisciplinary approach, this book draws on a range of legal and extra-legal disciplines. Whilst addressing crucial legal questions throughout, it also considers the role and impact of politics, history, psychology, terrorism, transitioning society, and even the idea of hope in how we understand international criminal justice. Challenging many of the prevalent paradigms of thinking in this area, Gideon Boas and Pascale Chifflet explore whether it is possible to reconcile some of the enduring intellectual conflict, such as whether and how retributive and restorative approaches to justice can co-exist.
- James D. Fry, Ethiopian Exceptionalism and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission
- Abiodun Jacob Osuntogun, Examination of the Institutional and Regulatory Framework for Corporate Human Rights Accountability in South Africa
- Avitus A. Agbor, Shifting the Matrix from Legal Passivity to a New Domestic Legal Order: Towards the Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Cameroon
- Getachew Mengistie & Michael Blakeney, Geographical Indications and the Scramble for Africa
- Howard Chitimira, A Conspectus of the Functions of the Judiciary under the Zimbabwe Constitution 2013
- Victor O. Ayeni & Matthew A. Olong, Opportunities and Challenges to the UN Security Council Referral under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
- Antti Belinskij, Louis J. Kotzé & Oliver Fuo, Domestic Manifestations of International Law's Right to Water: A Comparative Analysis of Emerging Rights Obligations in Finland and South Africa
International law pervades the U.S. Code. This will come as a surprise to many members of Congress, as well as to those who accept the common trope that Congress is ignorant about or hostile to international law. It also may be news to foreign affairs scholars who study those areas in which Congress necessarily must interact with international law, such as where the Senate provides advice and consent to treaty ratification or Congress enacts implementing legislation to further U.S. treaty commitments. Even those who have examined these high-profile congressional interactions with international law likely are not attuned to the breadth and depth of Congress’s voluntary interactions with international law in a wide variety of situations in which it legislates.
The little-discussed proliferation of international law throughout U.S. statutes – termed here “statutory international law” – is the launching point for the article. Because limited attention is paid to congressional engagement with international law, current legal literature lacks a descriptive and theoretical account of when, why, and how Congress engages with these norms to advance its legislative goals. This article is the first to systematically examine the phenomenon of statutory international law.
Tracking how these norms find their way into statutes reveals the critical but often unseen influence of the Executive on the language of legislation. Further, the presence of statutory international law in the U.S. Code has important implications for the development of customary international law. It accelerates the amount of state practice that the Executive and courts produce and correspondingly empowers the United States to shape customary international law. This, in turn, reduces customary international law’s notorious democracy deficit. In the domestic context, statutory international law introduces new factors to inform ongoing debates about the Charming Betsy canon of statutory interpretation, while highlighting confounding effects on the separation of powers in foreign affairs.
The case for the desirability of the modern system of investment treaty arbitration rests on certain stylized historical claims. Those claims serve to demonstrate that the pre-modern system of dealing with investor-state disputes was inferior compared to current arrangements, which allow foreign investors to initiate highly legalized (or “depoliticized”) arbitration against host state governments for alleged violations of investment treaties. The implication of the historical comparison is that we should accept, and perhaps even expand, investment treaty arbitration to avoid a return to the bad old days. This Article challenges the historicity of this standard story through an in-depth examination of a forgotten but important episode of expropriation from the 1970s, Mauritania’s seizure of the MIFERMA iron ore operations. As I show below, politicized dispute settlement need not entail, nor even risk, resort to force. It can even be successful, especially where both home and host state government perceive mutual gains from continued cooperation. This does not mean that investors get everything they want, when they want it. In politicized dispute settlement the investor does not control the process — though he can certainly influence it — and the investor’s interests are not the only ones in play. More generally, the Article suggests the utility of micro-historical analysis of investor-state disputes as a methodology for gaining a more realistic understanding of how legalized investor-state dispute settlement coexists and interacts with, and may even support, “diplomatic protection”, broadly construed, and negotiated outcomes.
- Alexander Peukert, Intellectual property and development—narratives and their empirical validity
- Gabriele Spina Alì, TRIPS and disclosure of clinical information: An intellectual property perspective on data sharing
- Candra Irawan, Protection of traditional knowledge: A perspective on Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia
- Narendran Thiruthy, Open source—Is it an alternative to intellectual property?
Thursday, May 18, 2017
- Patrick Butchard & Christian Henderson, A Functional Typology of Commissions of Inquiry
- Michelle Farrell & Ben Murphy, Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: The Politics of Establishing United Nations Commissions of Inquiry
- Rob Grace, Lessons From Two Regional Missions: Fact-finding in Georgia and South Sudan
- Stephen Samuel & James A Green, Domestic Commissions of Inquiry and International Law: The Importance of Normative Authority
- Alexander Orakhelashvili, Commissions of Inquiry and Traditional Mechanisms of Dispute Settlement
- Christine Schwöbel-Patel, Commissions of Inquiry: Courting International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
- Triestino Mariniello, The Impact of International Commissions of Inquiry on the Proceedings before the International Criminal Court
- Marco Odello, The Interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law in the Practice of Commissions of Inquiry
- Shane Darcy, Laying the Foundations: Commissions of Inquiry and the Development of International Law
- Russell Buchan, Quo Vadis? Commissions of Inquiry and their Implications for the Coherence of International Law
- Théo Boutruche, Selectivity and Choices in Human Rights Fact-finding: Reconciling Subjectivity with Objectivity?
- Alison Bisset, Commissions of Inquiry and Procedural Fairness
- Corinne Heaven, A Visible College: The Community of Fact-finding Practice
Children are the victims of some of the most devastating examples of state-sanctioned and private human rights abuse. In increasing numbers, they are attempting to find international protection, and are forced to navigate complex administrative and legal processes that fail to take into account their distinct needs and vulnerabilities. The key challenges they face in establishing entitlement to refugee protection are their invisibility and the risk of incorrect assessment. Drawing on an extensive and original analysis of jurisprudence of leading common law jurisdictions, this book undertakes an assessment of the extent to which these challenges may be overcome by greater engagement between international refugee law and international law on the rights of the child. The result is the first comprehensive study on the manner in which these two mutually reinforcing legal regimes can interact to strengthen the protection of refugee children.