- Koji Takahashi, Review of the Brussels I Regulation: A Comment from the Perspectives of Non-Member States (Third States)
- Paola Mariani, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Carriage of Goods by Road Matters in the European Union
- Christopher Bisping, Avoid the Statutist Trap: The International Scope of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
- Susanne L. Goessl, Preliminary Questions in EU Private International Law
- Jieying Liang, Statutory Restrictions on Party Autonomy in China's Private International Law of Contract: How Far Does the 2010 Codification Go?
- Elena Rodríguez Pineau, The Law Applicable to Intra-Family Torts
- Pilar Jiménez Blanco, Unmarried Fathers and Child Abduction in European Union Law
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
This was an extremely short paper prepared for the American Society of International Law Conference 2011. It addresses three points: (1) the emergence of uncertainty in the utopian systemic ideals for international law - that we have seen form in the fragmentation discourse; (2) the value of sociological inquiry into tribunalisation: treating fragmentation for what it is: far more than an issue concerned with norms; and (3) the value of ethical inquiry: re-examining the role of international lawyers in light of arguable professional fragmentation. It advocates a call for (2) and (3), nothing more.
- Articles on Rio+20 and the Future of International Environmental Governance
- Pamela Chasek, Incorporating Regional Priorities into Global Conferences: A Review of the Regional Preparatory Committee Meetings for Rio+20
- Joyeeta Gupta & Nadia Sanchez, Global Green Governance: Embedding the Green Economy in a Global Green and Equitable Rule of Law Polity
- Klaus Bosselmann, Peter G. Brown & Brendan Mackey, Enabling a Flourishing Earth: Challenges for the Green Economy, Opportunities for Global Governance
- Peter Doran, Care of the Self, Care of the Earth: A New Conversation for Rio+20?
- Carl Bruch, Marion Boulicault, Shuchi Talati & David Jensen, International Law, Natural Resources and Post-conflict Peacebuilding: From Rio to Rio+20 and Beyond
- Case Note
- Erin Daly, The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications of Constitutional Rights of Nature
- Current Events: Libya, Cooperation, and Complementarity
- Florian Jessberger, Foreword
- Dapo Akande, The Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations to Cooperate with the ICC
- Carsten Stahn, Libya, the International Criminal Court and Complementarity: A Test for ‘Shared Responsibility’
- Conor McCarthy, Victim Redress and International Criminal Justice: Competing Paradigms, or Compatible Forms of Justice?
- Kiran Grewal, The Protection of Sexual Autonomy under International Criminal Law: The International Criminal Court and the Challenge of Defining Rape
- Janine Natalya Clark, The ICTY and Reconciliation in Croatia: A Case Study of Vukovar
- Arman Sarvarian, Ethical Standards for Prosecution and Defence Counsel before International Courts: The Legacy of Nuremberg
- Katharina Margetts & Katerina I. Kappos, Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals
- Global Insights
- Bruce W. Jentleson, The John Holmes Memorial Lecture: Global Governance in a Copernican World
- Rama Mani, Cure or Curse? The Role of Religion in Violent Conflict and Peaceful Governance
- Georg Caspary, Practical Steps to Help Countries Overcome the Resource Curse: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
- Jan Aart Scholte, A More Inclusive Global Governance? The IMF and Civil Society in Africa
- Peter Wallensteen & Helena Grusell, Targeting the Right Targets? The UN Use of Individual Sanctions
- Edward McMahon & Marta Ascherio, A Step Ahead in Promoting Human Rights? The Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council
Orakhelashvili: Human Rights Protection During Extra-Territorial Military Operations: Perspectives at International and English Law
This contribution examines the scope of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Before proceeding to specific questions of interpretation, section 2 examines the preliminary questions that share a common underlying theme, namely the possibility of legal obstacles restricting the effective extra-territorial application of human rights treaties: the applicability of humanitarian law in the same situation where human rights law applies and the question of the attribution of wrongful acts in situations where multiple entities are active. Section 3 then proceeds to identify the precise meaning of Article 1 and how it has been applied in judicial practice. Section 4 examines the implications for the English legal system when issues are raised under Article 1. Section 5 focuses on situations where human rights treaties apply extra-territorially in principle but a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council is invoked to supersede their effect. Section 6 focuses on further obstacles to the effective application of human rights treaties presented by litigation in England, such as Act of State and justiciability. Section 7 then offers general conclusions.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
The international law governing when states may target to kill or preventively detain nonstate actors is in disarray. This Article puts much of the blame on the method that international law uses to answer that question. The method establishes different standards in four regulatory domains: (1) law enforcement, (2) emergency, (3) armed conflict for civilians, and (4) armed conflict for combatants. Because the legal standards vary, so too may substantive outcomes; decisionmakers must select the correct domain before determining whether targeting or detention is lawful. This Article argues that the “domain method” is practically unworkable and theoretically dubious. Practically, the method breeds uncertainty and subverts the discursive process by which international law adapts to new circumstances and holds decisionmakers accountable. Theoretically, it presupposes that the domain choice, rather than shared substantive considerations embedded in the domains, drives legal outcomes. This Article argues, to the contrary, that all targeting and detention law is and ought to be rooted in a common set of core principles. Decisionmakers should look to those principles to assess when states may target or detain nonstate actors. Doing so would address the practical problems of the domain method. It would narrow the uncertainty about when targeting and detention are lawful, lead to a more coherent legal discourse, and equip decisionmakers to develop the law and hold one another accountable.
INDIAN YEARBOOK OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY
The Indian Yearbook of International Law and Policy is currently soliciting submissions for its third issue due to be published in December, 2012. We welcome submissions from academicians, practitioners, policymakers and students from within the legal community and have a strong preference for articles that are not descriptive but prescriptive and argumentatively focused. The submissions will go through a two-staged peer review process and if necessary, will also be edited by the Editorial Board. Please send in your submissions by July 15, 2012 under the categories mentioned below. For general queries relating to your submissions, kindly write to us at: email@example.com.
ABOUT THE YEARBOOK
The INDIAN YEARBOOK of INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY is a peer-reviewed academic publication and aims to provide a forum for the publication of articles in the field of international law, written primarily by experts from the region and elsewhere. The Yearbook seeks to provide an intellectual platform for the discussion and dissemination of Indian views and practices on contemporary international legal issues. It also seeks to encourage interest in all matters relating to international law, exploring new avenues and approaches to its study and has been envisaged as a response to the longstanding demand for the documentation of national practice and policy related to international law.
The contents of the first edition of the Yearbook is attached herewith.
Submissions may be made under the following categories:
Articles: 8000-12000 words,
Comments/Notes: 4000-7000 words,
Case Comments: 3500-8000 words,
Book Reviews: 2000-4000 words
Longer Contributions under each of the categories shall be considered subject to the approval of the Peer Review Board.
The conference will bring together operators, policy makers, technical experts, and legal scholars to examine the legal norms that govern both cyber strategies and the use of cyber capabilities during armed conflict and other military operations. The goal of the conference is to leverage the expertise of our distinguished speakers by creating a body of scholarship which will influence thinking about cyber operations and international law for years to come.
The Oxford Handbook of Governance presents an authoritative and accessible state-of-the-art analysis of the social science literature on governance. The volume presents the core concepts and knowledge that have evolved in the study of governance in different levels and arenas of politics and policymaking. In doing so it establishes itself as the essential point of reference for all those studying politics, society, and economics from a governance perspective. The volume comprises fifty-two chapters from leaders in the field. The chapters are organized in nine sections dealing with topics that include governance as the reform of the state, democratic governance, European governance, and global governance.
Culture matters. There is a deep well of research that demonstrates the myriad ways in which national cultures shape outcomes in world politics. Culture has come to the study of International Organizations, as well. Most of this work focuses on how International Organizations are important shapers of national and international cultures.
A new and exciting literature has sprung up around the question of how the cultural life of international organizations helps us understand a variety of puzzling outcomes: uneven patterns of norm adoption within IOs, the disappointing or even pathological performance of IOs in important cases, biases in how IOs treat member states, adjustment to changing demands and constraints in their external environments – each has been linked in some way to organizational culture.
The new insights are of obvious importance. Clearly, organizational culture matters to the leaders of IOs. James Wolfensohn, after all, put “re-engineering” the World Bank’s culture at the center of his agenda as head of the institution. The arrival of Christine Lagarde at the IMF prompted Alan Beattie of the Financial Times to devote a column to speculating about whether her reputed management style would be incongruous in an institution “which was heavily shaped by European civil servants, [and which] features more hierarchical traditions.”
This workshop is organized around the issue of IOs’ organizational cultures.
- Marco Alberto Velásquez Ruiz, En nombre de la Paz y la Seguridad Internacional: Reflexiones sobre la acción legislativa del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas
- Juana Inés Acosta−López & Lina Álvarez, Las líneas lógicas de investigación: una contribción del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos al juzgamiento de los crímenes de sistema en marcos de justicia transicional
- Luis Manuel Lasso, Algunas reflexiones sobre el trámite de soluciones amistosas por parte de Colombia ante el Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los Derechos Humanos, SIDH (1994−1997)
- Damián A. González Salzberg, Derechos económicos y sociales en el Sistema Interamericano de Derecho Humanos: Pensando nuevas estrategias para obtener protección judicial
- Rafael Nieto Navia, El valor jurídico de las recomendaciones de los Comités de derechos humanos y el bloque de constitucionalidad
- Abel Laureano, Dificuldades e soluções (ou pseudosoluções) da integracao: A cooperacao reforcadaeuropeia mecanismo de integracao ou nova forma de mera coperacao internacional?
- Miguel Ángel Martín López, Comentarios cobre la colisión de normas y principios del mismo nivel jerárquico en el derecho internacional
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Why do countries give foreign aid? Although many countries have official development assistance programs, this book argues that no two of them see the purpose of these programmes in the same way. Moreover, the way countries frame that purpose has shaped aid policy choices past and present. The author examines how Belgium long gave aid out of a sense of obligation to its former colonies, The Netherlands was more interested in pursuing international influence, Italy has focused on the reputational payoffs of aid flows and Norwegian aid has had strong humanitarian motivations since the beginning. But at no time has a single frame shaped any one country's aid policy exclusively. Instead, analysing half a century of legislative debates on aid in these four countries, this book presents a unique picture both of cross-national and over time patterns in the salience of different aid frames and of varying aid programmes that resulted.
- Frank Grundig, Dealing with the temporal domain of regime effectiveness: A further conceptual development of the Oslo-Potsdam solution
- Arild Underdal, Strategies in international regime negotiations: reflecting background conditions or shaping outcomes?
- Johannes Urpelainen, Technology investment, bargaining, and international environmental agreements
- J. C. Hourcade, B. Perrissin Fabert & J. Rozenberg, Venturing into uncharted financial waters: an essay on climate-friendly finance
- Inga M. Jacobs, A community in the Orange: the development of a multi-level water governance framework in the Orange-Senqu River basin in Southern Africa
Over the course of the last decade, the European Union has acquired an operational capability enabling it to deploy military and civilian crisis management missions in third countries in pursuit of its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Since 2003, the EU has launched more than twenty CSDP missions, ranging from large-scale military and civilian deployments in the Balkans to more modest security sector reform and monitoring missions in Georgia, Guinea Bissau and elsewhere.
The conduct of the Union’s crisis management operations raises a number of questions relating to human rights law that merit urgent academic attention. The conference will bring together a group of academic and professional experts to explore two cross-cutting themes: (1) the duty to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in EU crisis management missions and (2) the contribution that such missions make to the Union’s policy of promoting human rights at the international level.
Highly-recognized legal scholars as well as practitioners from Member States’ administrations, the Council of the European Union (its Secretariat and Legal Service) and the European Parliament will discuss the challenges of the human rights dimension in the EU’s conduct of crisis management operations.
Hessbruegge: European Court of Human Rights Protects Migrants Against “Push Back” Operations the High Seas
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
- April 26, 2012: Malcolm D. Evans (Univ. of Bristol - Law), "Tackling Torture through Prevention: the experience of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture"
- May 3, 2012: Michael Wood (20 Essex Street), "International law and the use of force: what happens in practice?"
- May 10, 2012: Geoffrey Nice (Temple Garden Chambers), International Criminal Tribunals: Experiments? Works in progress? Institutions that are here for good? A practitioner's view
- May 17, 2012: Theodor Meron (Judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), "Customary Law in the International Criminal Tribunals"
- May 24, 2012: David Sloss (Santa Clara Univ. - Law), "Domestic Application of Treaties"
Is it important to conceptualize transnational law and “map” it as a new legal field? This article suggests that to do so might help both juristic practice and sociolegal scholarship in organizing, linking, and comparing disparate but increasingly significant types of regulation. To explore the idea of transnational law is to raise basic questions about the nature of both “law” and “society” (taken as the realm law regulates). This involves radically rethinking relationships between the public and the private, between law and state, and between different sources of law and legal authority. Taking as its focus Von Daniels's The Concept of Law from a Transnational Perspective and Calliess and Zumbansen's Rough Consensus and Running Code (both 2010), the article considers what approaches may be most productive, and what key issues need to be addressed, to make sense of broad trends in law's extension beyond the boundaries of nation-states.
The 12th Annual WTO Conference, jointly organized by BIICL and the Institute of International Economic Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, will take place on May 16-17 at the Brunei Gallery, of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Topics under consideration for this year's conference include:
- China's career in the WTO (including dispute settlement developments, exchange rate issues, intellectual property issues, and "South-South" arrangements;
- Russia's accession to the WTO;
- The Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations and the future of the WTO and the Doha Round;
- GSP and GSP+ programs (including the recent services waiver), and the GSP bargaining process;
- Subsidies issues in the wake of the global financial crisis;
- Recent developments in WTO dispute settlement jurisprudence; in particular, new jurisprudence interpreting the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (in particular, the Clove Cigarettes, Tuna II (Mexico), and US - COOL reports);
- Recent and planned changes in the global financial architecture in the wake of the global financial crisis.
This chapter analyses the role and limits of multilateralism in the field of international migrations. It provides a critical assement of international migration law as enshrined in customary law and treaty law. Note: Downloadable document is in French.
Pauwelyn, Wessel, & Wouters: Informal International Lawmaking: An Assessment and Template to Keep it Both Effective and Accountable
This paper summarizes the findings of a two-year research project on "informal international lawmaking" (IN-LAW), that is, cross-border normative activity involving non-traditional actors, processes and outputs. We evaluate the likely reasons for the rise of IN-LAW and weigh possible options in response. We then assesses the legitimacy of both new forms of cooperation and traditional international law, also tackling the questions of whether new forms benefit powerful actors and how to keep activity accountable. Finally, focusing on the short to medium term, we question whether some of the new outputs of international cooperation could already be seen as part of traditional international law and how traditional and new forms are (or could be) interacting before international courts and tribunals. In this respect, we propose certain procedural meta-norms against which new cooperation forms ought to be checked, which we refer to as 'thick stakeholder consensus' imposing limits in respect of actors (authority), process, and output. Intriguingly, this benchmark may be normatively superior (rather than inferior) to the validation requirements of traditional international law, coined here as 'thin State consent'.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The 2012 Cyberdialogue Conference, hosted by the University of Toronto, asked the question 'What is Stewardship in Cyberspace'? This essay pursues that stewardship inquiry through the lens of international law. Existing debates on the nature of cyberspace have emphasized its suitability for governance by social norms, domestic law, or some combination of the two. Questions of international law — to the extent they are raised at all — have been limited to asking how (and how well) existing rules analogize to cyberspace. But international law also clearly has something to say about defining what kind of resource cyberspace is (or might become).
International law has long divvied up the world’s resources into categories, with different forms of governance for different types of resources. These categories suggest that a stewardship approach to regulating cyberspace could work. But doing so requires a critical assumption: that cyberspace is a shared resource (or one where individual interests are so comingled as to defy separation). That vision of cyberspace is not, however, universally held. Some deny that cyberspace is “space” at all, or insist that its resources can be (and are better off) apportioned to individual States. In particular, any use of the “stewardship” label for cyberspace governance will generate opposition from those who prefer to label cyberspace as subject to governance based on sovereignty. A contest pitting stewardship against sovereignty is likely to forestall, if not derail, agreement on any particular governance structure for cyberspace. Such a fight is not, however, inevitable. International law does not limit governing frameworks to those accompanying stewardship or sovereignty, but offers a spectrum of ways to regulate resources. This paper undertakes a brief survey of these hybrid approaches and suggests that — instead of fighting over what we should call cyberspace — a discussion of what behaviour we want to encourage (or prohibit) is a more appropriate starting point for future conversations about cyberspace governance.
- Marie-Aude Beernaert, Christian Charrière-Bournazel, & Yvan Jeanneret, Les suites de l'arrêt Salduz en driot belge, francais et suisse
- Hélène Surrel, L'extension audacieuse de la compétence ratione temporis de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en matière de protection des droits procéduraux garantis par les articles 2 et 3 de la Convention
- Ümit Kilinc, La conception de la démocratie militante dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme
- Catherine Le Bris, Vers la « protection diplomatique » des non-nationaux victimes de violation des droits de l'homme?
Ayres and Braithwaite’s Responsive Regulation (RR) has opened up important new ways of thinking about regulation in the 20 years since its publication. But RR was envisioned as a tool for domestic agencies. Thus, although RR focused on encouraging business self-regulation, it was designed for a setting in which agencies had clear jurisdiction, full regulatory capacity and extensive information, and could (contingently) deploy stringent sanctions against well-defined private targets. Since 1992, however, the locus of many regulatory problems has shifted to the transnational arena, characterized by multiple regulators, public and private, with limited capacities, authority and information and modest sanctioning ability. As production has globalized, moreover, targets have become diffuse and difficult to identify.
RR holds important lessons for transnational regulation, but it must be adapted to these challenging conditions. Some components of transnational RR are already emerging. These include many private and public-private schemes that regulate (and self-regulate) business through voluntary norms: “transnational regulatory standard-setting” (TRSS). Acting alone, however, TRSS schemes face serious limitations. International organizations (IGOs) are the best-positioned transnational responsive regulators, but lack agency-like authority.
To adapt RR to the transnational context, IGOs should focus on strengthening and working with the nascent TRSS system. Two techniques are particularly promising. In “regulatory collaboration,” IGOs engage with business to promote self-regulation, much as in RR. IGOs have limited ability to escalate in response to defection, but can deploy reputational and market sanctions (negative and positive). In “orchestration,” IGOs catalyze, support and steer intermediaries, including TRSS schemes and NGOs (PIGs), which use their own material and ideational capacities to regulate and promote self-regulation. Orchestration cumulates regulatory competencies and creates avenues of escalation. It also provides many benefits of RR “tripartism:” deterring capture, promoting contestability and experimentation, empowering societal groups and disciplining “zealous PIGs.” Orchestration can also be applied internationally in regulating states, and domestically in regulating business.
Akande: The Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations to Cooperate with the ICC
The article considers whether the obligations of states in respect of which there is a United Nations Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) are the same as the cooperation obligations of states parties to the Statute. It is argued that despite the lack of clarity in the resolutions referring the situation in Darfur and in Libya to the ICC, the better view is that the obligation imposed on Sudan and Libya to ‘cooperate fully’ with the ICC should be regarded as an obligation to cooperate in accordance with the provisions of the ICC Statute. This means that those states are entitled to benefit from those limited provisions of the ICC Statute which permit a refusal to cooperate with the Court or permit the state to postpone the execution of a request by the Court for assistance. The article also considers the interaction between the obligations of states to cooperate with the ICC and domestic proceedings against those sought for ICC prosecution. It considers the extent to which the obligation of cooperation may be suspended by an admissibility challenge and addresses whether the permission to suspend the obligation of cooperation may extend to a suspension of the obligation to surrender an accused person to the ICC.
- Kathleen A. Cavanaugh, Speaking Law to War
- Guido den Dekker & Tom Coppen, Termination and Suspension of, and Withdrawal from, WMD Arms Control Agreements in Light of the General Law of Treaties
- Peter Hilpold, Intervening in the Name of Humanity: R2P and the Power of Ideas
- Katie A. Johnston, Transformations of Conflict Status in Libya
- Julian M. Lehmann, All Necessary Means to Protect Civilians: What the Intervention in Libya Says About the Relationship Between the Jus in Bello and the Jus ad Bellum
- Alon Margalit, Did LOAC Take the Lead? Reassessing Israel's Targeted Killing of Salah Shehadeh and the Subsequent Calls for Criminal Accountability
Sunday, April 15, 2012
- Thomas J. Stipanowich, The Third Arbitration Trilogy: Stolt-Nielsen, Rent-A-Center, Concepcion and the Future of American Arbitration
- Alan Scott Rau, Arbitral Power and the Limits of Contract: The New Trilogy
- George A. Bermann, The Supreme Court Trilogy and Its Impact on U.S. Arbitration Law