The Section on International Law of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) is pleased to announce a Call for Papers for its program at the AALS 2015 Annual Meeting in Washington D.C. on Sunday, January 4 at 10:30 am.
The topic of the program and call for papers is “The Influence of International Law on U.S. Government Decision-Making.” This panel will explore the role that international law plays in informing the policy outcomes arrived at by U.S. government decision-makers. To what extent is international law determinative or even influential, and to what extent does the policy area, the branch of government, or the ideological orientation of the decision-maker matter? As a more practical matter, at what stage in the decision-making process is international law taken into account and who are the most influential actors? How can academics be most influential in that process? The presenter chosen through this call for papers will join several prominent current or former U.S. government officials in a panel discussion.
Eligible faculty members are invited to submit manuscripts or detailed abstracts that address any of numerous issues related to the way in which international law infuses decision-making within the United States government.
Per AALS policy, only full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit a paper to a call for papers. The following are ineligible: faculty at fee-paid law schools, international, visiting (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and non-law school faculty. Untenured faculty members are particularly encouraged to submit papers.
Registration fee and expenses
The selected Call for Paper participant is responsible for paying his or her AALS annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Form and length of submission
Eligible faculty members are invited to submit manuscripts or detailed abstracts dealing with any aspect of the foregoing topic. Detailed abstracts should be comprehensive enough to allow the committee to meaningfully evaluate the aims and likely content of papers proposed. Papers may be accepted for publication but must not be published prior to the Annual Meeting.
Deadline and submission method
Papers must be submitted electronically to: Ms. Carol Manis, Assistant to Professor Cindy Buys at Southern Illinois University School of Law. The subject of the email should read: “Submission for AALS Section on International Law.”
The initial review of the papers and abstracts will be blind, and will be conducted by members of the section’s executive committee. In order to facilitate blind review, please identify yourself and your institutional affiliation only in the cover letter accompanying your manuscript, and not in the manuscript itself. The submitting author is responsible for taking any steps necessary to redact self-identifying text or footnotes.
The deadline for submission is September 2, 2014.
The author of the selected paper/abstract will be notified by September 28, 2014.
Binder & Lachmayer: The European Court of Human Rights and Public International Law: Fragmentation or Unity?
Christina Binder & Konrad Lachmayer have published The European Court of Human Rights and Public International Law: Fragmentation or Unity? (Nomos 2014). Here’s the abstract:
How does the European Court of Human Rights deal with notions, issues and principles of public international law? How is public international law received and applied by the European Court of Human Rights? The different contributions analyse the question “Fragmentation or Unity?” in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in light of different issues. Topics include the Court’s approach to the law of treaties, state responsibility, and state and diplomatic immunity. Likewise, the manner in which the European Court of Human Rights deals with the obligation to not recognize unlawful situations is examined.
Vidmar: Democracy and Regime Change in the Post-Cold War International Law
Jure Vidmar (Univ. of Oxford – Law) has posted Democracy and Regime Change in the Post-Cold War International Law (New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, Vol. 11, p. 349, 2013). Here’s the abstract:
International human rights treaties were drafted in the age of the Cold War. In this environment, they remained neutral with respect to the particular political system or electoral method. In the post-Cold War era, scholarly arguments have been made that contemporary international law should be read with a democratic bias. Analysing the practice of states and United Nations organs, this article critically considers the democratic reading of international legal norms and argues that even in the post-Cold War era, a state does not violate international law simply by not being democratic. But this conclusion is not unqualified. The article demonstrates that collective practice is emerging of denial of legitimacy to coup governments where they overthrow democratically-elected ones. Governments can also lose international legitimacy on the basis of their abusiveness, although the latter is not necessarily determined by a lack of democratic electoral practices. Finally, where a regime change is internationalised, a collective attempt is commonly made to enact a new democratic government. Although not a legal norm per se, democracy is often an international policy preference which has influenced even some legally-binding documents adopted in the post-Cold War period.
Clark: International Trials and Reconciliation
Janine Natalya Clark (Univ. of Sheffield – Politics) has published International Trials and Reconciliation: Assessing the Impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Routledge 2014). Here’s the abstract:
Transitional justice is a burgeoning field of scholarly inquiry. Yet while the transitional justice literature is replete with claims about the benefits of criminal trials, too often these claims lack an empirical basis and hence remain unproven. While there has been much discussion about whether criminal trials can aid reconciliation, the extent to which they actually do so in practice remains under-explored. This book investigates the relationship between criminal trials and reconciliation, through a particular focus on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Using detailed empirical data – in the form of qualitative interviews and observations from five years of fieldwork – to assess and analyze the ICTY’s impact on reconciliation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia and Kosovo, International Trials and Reconciliation: Assessing the Impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia argues that reconciliation is not a realistic aim for a criminal court. They are, Janine Clark argues, only one part of a rich tapestry of justice, which must also include non-retributive transitional justice processes and mechanisms.
New Issue: International Journal of Refugee Law
The latest issue of the International Journal of Refugee Law (Vol. 26, no. 2, June 2014) is out. Contents include:
• Liv Feijen, Filling the Gaps? Subsidiary Protection and Non-EU Harmonized Protection Status(es) in the Nordic Countries
• Mollie Gerver, Testing Repatriation Contracts for Unconscionability: The Case of Refugees in Israel
• Tilman Rodenhäuser, Another Brick in the Wall: Carrier Sanctions and the Privatization of Immigration Control
• Joke Reijven & Joris van Wijk, Caught in Limbo: How Alleged Perpetrators of International Crimes who Applied for Asylum in the Netherlands are Affected by a Fundamental System Error in International Law
• Hugo Storey, What Constitutes Persecution? Towards a Working Definition
New Issue: American Journal of International Law
The latest issue of the American Journal of International Law (Vol. 108, no. 2, April 2014) is out. Contents include:
• Tom Ruys, The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?
• Richard B. Stewart, Remedying Disregard in Global Regulatory Governance: Accountability, Participation, and Responsiveness
• Current Developments
o Douglas Guilfoyle & Cameron A. Miles, Provisional Measures and the MV Arctic Sunrise
• International Decisions
o John D. Ciorciari, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)
o Mart Susi, Delfi AS v. Estonia
o Chimène I. Keitner, Jones v. United Kingdom
o John R. Crook, In re Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India)
o Shen Wei, Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru
• Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
o Kristina Daugirdas & Julian Davis Mortenson, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
• Recent Books on International Law
o Brian R. Israel, International Law and Governance in a Changing Arctic, reviewing International Law and the Arctic, by Michael C. Byers; and Ice and Water: Politics, Peoples, and the Arctic Council, by John English
o George H. Aldrich, reviewing Humanizing the Laws of War: Selected Writings of Richard Baxter, by Richard Baxter
o Galit A. Sarfaty, reviewing Transnational Legal Ordering and State Change, edited by Gregory C. Shaffer
o Timothy Meyer, reviewing Economic Foundations of International Law, by Eric A. Posner and Alan O. Sykes
o Jacob Katz Cogan, reviewing The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, edited by Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters
o Jaya Ramji-Nogales, reviewing Violence Against Women Under International Human Rights Law, by Alice Edwards
o Charlotte Ku, reviewing Informal International Lawmaking, edited by Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses A. Wessel, and Jan Wouters
New Issue: International Organizations Law Review
The latest issue of the International Organizations Law Review (Vol. 10, no. 2, 2013) is out. Contents include:
• Forum: Immunity of International Organizations
o Niels Blokker & Nico Schrijver, Foreword
o Niels Blokker, International Organizations: The Untouchables?
o Johan G. Lammers, Immunity of International Organizations: The Work of the International Law Commission
o Michael Wood, Do International Organizations Enjoy Immunity Under Customary International Law?
o Philippa Webb, Should the 2004 UN State Immunity Convention Serve as a Model/Starting point for a Future UN Convention on the Immunity of International Organizations?
o Bruce C. Rashkow, Immunity of the United Nations: Practice and Challenges
o Gian Luca Burci & Egle Granziera, Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges
o Edward Kwakwa & Marie-Lea Rols, The Privileges and Immunities of the World Intellectual Property Organization: Practice and Challenges
o Ramses A. Wessel, Immunities of the European Union
o Peter Olson, Immunities of International Organizations: A NATO View
o Chanaka Wickremasinghe, The Immunity of International Organizations in the United Kingdom
o Kirsten Schmalenbach, Austrian Courts and the Immunity of International Organizations
o Eric De Brabandere, Belgian Courts and the Immunity of International Organizations
o Beatrice I. Bonafè, Italian Courts and the Immunity of International Organizations
o Thomas Henquet, The Jurisdictional Immunity of International Organizations in the Netherlands and the View from Strasbourg
o August Reinisch, To What Extent Can and Should National Courts ‘Fill the Accountability Gap’?
o Nico Schrijver, Beyond Srebrenica and Haiti: Exploring Alternative Remedies against the United Nations
o Niels Blokker & Nico Schrijver, Afterwords