Saturday, May 27, 2017
Friday, May 26, 2017
- Volume 382
- Daniel P. Cooper & Christopher Kuner, Data Protection Law and International Dispute Resolution
- Bing Bing Jia, International Case Law in the Development of International Law
Yale Law School is proud to host the Seventh Annual Doctoral Scholarship Conference, to be held on November 10-11, 2017, in New Haven, Connecticut. The conference aims to provide doctoral students and early-stage postdocs with a forum to workshop, present, and debate their work. It seeks to promote quality research and to facilitate meaningful academic dialogue, with a view towards fostering a community of legal scholars.
The conference is open to all current doctoral candidates, in law or related disciplines, and to those who completed their doctoral degrees during the 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 academic year. Participants will be selected on the basis of their abstracts’ quality and capacity to provoke thoughtful debate with other submissions.
This year’s conference will be divided into three separate “wheels”—thematic working groups which will run in parallel—comprising around eight participants each. This year’s three wheels will cover papers in the fields of “International Law”, “Law, Society, History”, and “Law, Politics, Theory”. The purpose of this breakdown into wheels is to allow enough time for each paper to be workshopped thoroughly and receive comments from scholars who are well versed in the academic field in which the article is situated. In addition to intensive workshops in small groups, there will be several receptions, and keynotes and workshops by Yale Law School faculty, open to all participants, allowing attendees to get to know one another, advance their professional development, and socialize.
Within individual wheels, authors will be expected to offer brief, 10-minute introductions, to their paper, followed by an intensive workshop-like discussion. Selected participants will be expected to attend all conference events. Additionally, participants will be expected to read, in advance, and come prepared to comment and discuss all papers presented in their respective wheels. We anticipate that the conference will be the beginning of a longer-term collaboration amongst participants.
The Doctoral Scholarship Conference is generously sponsored by the Graduate Programs Office at Yale Law School. We regret that we are unable to provide financial support for travel and accommodation.
Applications will be accepted through this online form until July 1, 2017. Each applicant must indicate which of the three wheels their proposal is to be associated with; each proposal can only be associated with a single wheel. A proposal must consist of (i) an extended abstract of up to 500 words; and (ii) a brief one-paragraph biographical note. Applicants of selected papers will be informed of acceptance no later than August 1, 2017. Selected participants will be required to submit papers of up to 10,000 words in length (excluding footnotes) by October 1, 2017, which will be circulated among the members and participants of their respective wheels.
For any questions or concerns, please contact doctoralconference.law[at]yale.edu.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
The term "genocide"—"group killing"—which first appeared in Raphael Lemkin's 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, had by 1948 established itself in international law through the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Since then the charge of genocide has been both widely applied but also contested. In Genocide: The Act as Idea, Berel Lang examines and illuminates the concept of genocide, at once articulating difficulties in its definition and proposing solutions to them. In his analysis, Lang explores the relation of genocide to group identity, individual and corporate moral responsibility, the concept of individual and group intentions, and the concept of evil more generally. The idea of genocide, Lang argues, represents a notable advance in the history of political and ethical thought which proposed alternatives to it, like "crimes against humanity," fail to take into account.
Aufgrund des sog. »Alien Tort Statute« (ATS), eines kleinen und etwa 100 Jahre lang vergessenen Satzes des US-amerikanischen Gerichtsverfassungsgesetzes von 1789, gründeten die US-Gerichte ein amerikanisches Forum mit weltweit reichender Gerichtsbarkeit für milliardenschwere Schadensersatzklagen wegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Dabei wurden insbesondere deutsche Gesellschaften in Anspruch genommen und Fälle, in denen deutsche Konzerne zu den Hauptbeklagten gehörten, mündeten in Leitentscheidungen der dogmatischen Expansion der ATS-Rechtsprechung. Daniel Felz arbeitet die enorme Masse an US-Entscheidungen auf, um die breitgefächerten dogmatischen Fundamente der ATS-Rechtsprechung zu ordnen. Alsdann widmet er sich der Behauptung der deutschen Bundesregierung, für derlei Klagen stünden die deutschen Gerichte offen, indem Felz einer Untersuchung der mit länderübergreifenden Menschenrechtsklagen verbundenen materiell- und prozessrechtlichen Fragen des deutschen Rechts nachgeht.
Although Emer de Vattel is widely acknowledged as a pivotal figure in the history of international thought, his legacy remains contested. Scholars struggle to find a comfortable intellectual collocation for what is often seen as an incoherent and contradictory thinker. The present article tackles this interpretation and suggests that the supposed inconsistencies in Vattel’s international thought diffuse once we fully grasp the nature of his intellectual intervention. In order to substantiate this view, the paper focuses on Vattel’s reasoning on the legitimacy of international interventions, as disclosed in his The Law of Nations. It recovers his casuistic mode of reasoning with reference to the historical and intellectual context from which it emerged. The article concludes by suggesting that this long-forgotten mode of reasoning offers a different entry point into current debates on international intervention and the use of force, one that might help us move beyond a merely moralistic approach.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
- 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
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