Call for Papers: International Law in a Dark Time

The Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights and Peking University Institute of International Law Collaboration Project (ECI-PUIIL Project) has issued a call for papers for a seminar for doctoral students and junior researchers on "International Law in a Dark Time," to be held May 22-23, 2017, in Helsinki. Here's the call:

“INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A DARK TIME”

Seminar for Doctoral Students and Junior Researchers

“INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A DARK TIME”

Seminar directors: Prof. Anne Orford (University of Melbourne) and Prof. Martti Koskenniemi (University of Helsinki)

Helsinki 22-23 May 2017

The Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights and Peking University Institute of International Law Collaboration Project (ECI-PUIIL Project) funded by CIMO is pleased to offer a seminar for PhD students and junior researchers to be held at Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. The purpose of this workshop is to examine the transformations of law at a specific moment in history in which law and lawfulness appear as much part of the problem as the solution.

The seminar is open to PhD students and young researchers, internationally, with a specific interest in the theme “International Law in a Dark Time”.

Theme of the Seminar

The call for papers is on four themes:

1) Human Rights in a Dark Time

2) Environmental Law in a Dark Time

3) The Laws of Security in a Dark Time

4) The Laws of the International Economy in a Dark Time.

The background for this workshop – and the call for papers – is formed by the experience that in the past 25 years optimism about international progress after the end of the Cold War has diminished and law’s role in global governance has come to appear increasingly ambivalent: it has often proven either useless or actually harmful. From an easy acceptance of the ideology of the “rule of law” in the early 1990s, we have come to realise that law comes in many forms and supports very different and often contradictory policies. On the one hand, there has been a massive growth of law in various specialist fields ranging from human rights to the environment, war and security to the economy. At the same time, in many of these fields a sense of a “crisis” has emerged or persists. Sometimes the crisis has been attributed to external phenomena – and law has come to seem inefficient in dealing with them. At other times crisis may seem have been created or exacerbated by the law itself. Despite the “growth” of law in the field of human rights and the environment, huge numbers of people experience daily deprivation and no end can be seen to the degradation of the quality of the environment. Laws enacted to protect the security of human groups are used to discipline and oppress, and economic laws seem powerful to forestall the massive growth of global inequality. In a word, the benefits of the traditional recipe to international problems of “more law” may no longer seem sustainable. The purpose of the workshop would be to examine law’s increasingly complex role and its often problematic consequences for international politics.

Format of the seminar

Each participant will deliver a paper and present it during the seminar. The papers shall be submitted before 30 April, and will be made available to all other participants. The seminar will be two days in total, and will not have parallel sessions.

Submission of Abstracts and Evaluation Process

An abstract (no more than 500 words) shall be submitted before 30 December. Please include full name, junior researcher/doctoral student/independent researcher, institutions/university, in the abstract. Accepted abstracts will be informed by 18 January.

All abstracts shall be sent to intlaw-institute@helsinki.fi with the title “International Law in a Dark Time + Name”.

Important Dates

30 Dec 2016: deadline for submission of abstracts by email.

18 Jan 2017: abstract evaluation and selection of papers

30 April: submission of full papers

Participation Fee

There is no participation fee. The participants are expected to cover their own travel and other expenses.

Scholarships

A limited number of scholarships are available for Chinese participants under the ECI-PUIIL Project. Applicants should be a doctoral candidate or a junior faculty member working at a Chinese university. A formal application (including a CV, an abstract, and a short statement) should be sent to intlaw-institute@helsinki.fi and concurrently to puiil@pku.edu.cn before 30 December. Decisions regarding the funding will be announced by 18 January.

Further Details

Information about transportation and accommodation will be sent to accepted participants in January 2017.

Posted by Jacob Katz Cogan.

Copiado de: COGAN, Jacob Katz. International Law Reporter. Disponível em: <http://ilreports.blogspot.com.br/2016/12/call-for-papers-international-law-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/RfRRI+(International+Law+Reporter)>. Acesso em: 22 dez. 2016.

The Use (and Misuse) of European Human Rights Law in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

José E. Alvarez

New York University School of Law

November 23, 2016

Chapter in Franco Ferrari (ed.), The Impact of EU Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Juris, Forthcoming) 

Abstract:

For some time, critics of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) have urged its arbitrators and litigants (particularly respondent states) to draw from other sources of international law, particularly human rights law, to promote interpretations of international investment agreements (IIAs) that cohere with other international legal regimes, including human rights values. Some have hoped that the use of human rights law would not only lessen the fragmentation of international law encouraged by self-regarding mechanisms such as ISDS but would also promote the "re-balancing" of IIAs to permit greater scope for sovereigns to regulate. This essay examines the ways European human rights law has been cited in publicly available investor-state awards. It finds considerable reliance on such citations in the largest known database of such awards. But close examination of such citations, including in the recent Philip Morris v. Uruguay case dealing with tobacco regulation, casts doubt on whether this reliance is likely to produce the results that some anticipate. Investor-claimants are as likely to cite to European human rights law as are respondent states. It is not at all clear from the results to date that recourse to human rights has either 'humanized' international investment law or made it more coherent.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 102

Disponível em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2875089>. Acesso em 05 dez. 2016.

The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Politics of Identifying Customary International Law

Niels Petersen 

University of Muenster – Faculty of Law; Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods

November 1, 2016

Forthcoming in European Journal of International Law, Vol. 28 (2017) 

MPI Collective Goods Preprint, No. 2016/19

Abstract: 

It is often observed in the literature on customary international law that the identification practice of the International Court of Justice for customary norms deviates from the traditional definition of customary law in Art. 38 (1) lit. b of the ICJ Statute. However, while there are many normative and descriptive accounts on customary law and the Court’s practice, few studies try to explain the jurisprudence of the ICJ. This study aims at closing this gap. I argue that the ICJ’s argumentation pattern is due to the institutional constraints that the Court faces. In order for its decisions to be accepted, it has to signal impartiality through its reasoning. However, the analysis of state practice necessarily entails the selection of particular instances of practice, which could tarnish the image of an impartial court. In contrast, if the Court resorts to the consent of the parties or widely accepted international documents, it signals impartiality.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Disponível em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2876543>. Acesso em: 05 dez. 2016.

Migration Emergencies

Jaya Ramji-Nogales 

Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law

November 14, 2016

Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 68, 2017

Abstract:

Migration emergencies are a commonplace feature in contemporary headlines. Pundits offer a variety of causes provoking these emergencies. Some highlight the deadly risks of these journeys for the migrants. Many more express alarm at the potential threats these mass influxes pose to their destination countries. But few question whether these migrant flows are, as commonly portrayed, unexpected and unpredictable. This paper asks whether these migration emergencies are surprising events or the logical and foreseeable outcomes of the structural failures of the global migration system. In particular, it interrogates the architecture of international migration law, arguing that the current framework is unsustainable in today’s globalized world.

This is a story about the legal construction of crisis. Several literatures offer compelling insights into the construction of migration crises, but fail to explore the crucial role of international migration law. Scholars of forced migration view the legal framework as an inadequate response to crises but not as a root cause. Others have highlighted the role that crises play in the development of international law, demonstrating how crises impact law, but failing to examine how law helps to construct those crises.

This article begins to unpack the role of international migration law in constructing migration “crises”. International migration law, because it is codified in written instruments and nearly impossible to alter, entrenches sociocultural frames that might otherwise be substantially more flexible. International law has constructed a deeply path-dependent approach to international migration that not only obscures systemic inequality but also consumes alternate conceptions of morality. In response to this critique, the article suggests a new approach to global migration law that aims to govern migrant flows more effectively. In short, it aims to establish international migration law as a separate subfield of international law rather than the afterthought that it currently represents.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 42

Disponível em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2869230>. Aesso em: 18 nov. 2016.

The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization

Anne Peters 

Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

August 15, 2016

Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2016-19

Abstract:

The new posture of international courts and tribunals is the ‘spirit of systemic harmonisation’, to use the words of the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber in Al Dulimi. Fifteen years after then ICJ President’s Gilbert Guillaume’s ‘proliferation’-speech before the UN General Assembly and ten years after publication of the ILC ‘fragmentation’-report, it is time to bury the f-word. Along that line, this paper concentrates on the positive contribution of the new techniques which courts, tribunals and other actors have developed in order to coordinate the various subfields of international law. If these are accompanied by a proper politicization of international law and governance, they are apt to strengthen both the effectiveness and the legitimacy of international law. Ironically, the ongoing ‘harmonisation’ and ‘integration’ within international law could also be conceptualised as a form of procedural constitutionalisation.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 29

Disponível em: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2823512>. Acesso em 19 ago. 2016.

Authority and Dialogue: State and Official Immunity in Domestic and International Courts

Chimène I. Keitner 

University of California Hastings College of the Law

July 14, 2016

CONCEPTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES (Chiara Giorgetti & Guglielmo Verdirame, eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, Forthcoming) 

Abstract:    

This chapter considers aspects of the ongoing conversation about norms of state and official immunity among domestic and international courts. Because immunity norms transect the international and domestic legal spheres, adjudicating immunity claims creates opportunities for dialogue between international and domestic courts about the content of immunity norms, and about which institutions (both domestic and international) have the authority to articulate and apply them.

Part I begins by discussing two challenges brought before international tribunals to the application of foreign state immunity by domestic courts: a challenge brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to the United Kingdom’s determination that Saudi Arabia was entitled to jurisdictional immunity from civil claims for torture (Jones v. United Kingdom), and a challenge brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to Italy’s determination that Germany was not entitled to jurisdictional immunity from civil claims for war crimes (Germany v. Italy). Both of these cases pitted the right of access to a judicial remedy against the norm of state immunity.

Part II examines two domestic cases that followed these international decisions. It discusses the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Estate of Kazemi v. Iran, which illustrates normative coalescence around a conception of immunity based on a domestic statute and reinforced by international jurisprudence. It then explores the Italian Constitutional Court’s Judgment 238/2014, which illustrates that international decisions can also provoke “legal protectionism” — the attempt to shield domestic norms and institutions from foreign or international “imports.”

Part III concludes by exploring how arguments based on the supremacy of domestic constitutional law have been used in other cases to justify non-compliance with the decisions of international bodies, even when the constitution explicitly incorporates international law into the domestic legal system. At a minimum, by conceptualizing various legal and political institutions as active interlocutors engaged in a collective process of norm articulation, we can perhaps worry somewhat less about who gets the “final word,” and focus instead on the doctrinal and normative implications of this ongoing conversation for the dignity and well-being of affected groups and individuals.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 19

Disponível em: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2809829>. Acesso em: 23 jul. 2016.

Journal of Private International Law Conference 2017

by THALIA KRUGER on JULY 9, 2016

The next Journal of Private International Law Conference will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 3-5 August 2017. We are now issuing a call for papers on any aspect of private international law. Abstracts of a maximum of 500 words should be sent to jprivintlrioconference2017@gmail.com by 15 November 2016. The previous conferences at Aberdeen, Birmingham, New York, Milan, Madrid and Cambridge have been extremely successful. The conference is the leading opportunity for private international law academics of all levels of seniority from around the world to gather together to advance our subject.

Speakers will not have to pay a registration fee for the conference but will be expected to fund their own travel expenses and accommodation costs. In addition, speakers will be expected to submit the finalised version of their articles for consideration for publication in the Journal of Private International Law in the first instance.

Disponível em: <http://conflictoflaws.net/2016/journal-of-private-international-law-conference-2017/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+conflictoflaws%2FRSS+%28Conflict+of+Laws+.net%29>. Acesso em: 10 jul. 2016.

Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System

Jorge Contesse

Rutgers Law School

April 1, 2016

Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 79(2), 2016 

Abstract:

This Article discusses the inter-American human rights system’s adjudication model in light of some of the conjectures on subsidiarity as a principle for international governance — that is, the degree of deference it grants to the assessment of a situation by the member state concerned. I inquire about the system’s role as arbitrator of human rights cases within its jurisdiction, examining the dynamics of subsidiarity within the system’s changing context. I find that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights tends to employ a maximalist model of adjudication. Such a model leaves little room for states to reach their own decisions and can be explained as largely resting upon the political context where the Court came to exist, almost four decades ago. I argue that there is a challenge ahead for the Court, namely, to reconcile both claims: on the one hand, states’ demands for higher deference, and on the other hand, the importance of an independent and legitimate regional human rights tribunal.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Disponível em: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2799476>. Acesso em: 07 jul. 2016.