Write On! Call for Papers: Inequality and Human Rights (Extended deadline 13 December)
Source: IntLaw Grrls
The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law has issued a Call for Papers [pdf] for an interdisciplinary conference on the theme “Inequality and Human Rights,” to be held April 7-8, 2016.
The deadline has been extended to December 13. For full info, see previous post here.
Call for Submissions: University of Bologna Law Review
Source: International Law Reporter
The University of Bologna Law Review has issued calls for submissions for its first and second issues. The calls are here (including the topics “international business and commercial litigation” and “commercial and investment arbitration”) and here (including the topic “trade law”).
Call for Submissions: The Protection of Cultural Property and the Norms of International Humanitarian Law
Source: International Law Reporter
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Regional Delegation for India, Bhutan and Maldives and the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) Secretariat have announced a call for submissions for the forthcoming issue of the AALCO Journal of International Law. The theme is: “The Protection of Cultural Property and the Norms of International Humanitarian Law.” The call is here.
The IACtHR: Theory and Practice, Present and Future
Scholars from the University of Ghent have published a new book examining procedural and substantive changes at the IACtHR throughout its history.
The edited collection features a range of contributions from distinguished practitioners and scholars of the IAHRS. The content is divided into ten sections which address: the reasoning of the Court; procedural aspects; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; reparations and provisional measures; enforced disappearances and amnesty laws; vulnerable groups; the Court and national judges; the interaction between the IACtHR and other international courts; and reforms to the IAHRS.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Theory and Practice, Present and Future was edited by Yves Haeck, Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga and Clara Burbano Herrera from University of Ghent’s Human Rights Centre, and includes a foreword by Pablo Saavedra Alessandri from the IACtHR.
The book is available for purchase via the Intersentia website. The publisher’s abstract is reproduced in full below:
Along with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights serves as the main watchdog for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights in the Americas. Drawing on the case law of the Court, this volume analyses crucial developments over the years on both procedural and substantive issues before the Inter-American Court. The book discusses access to legal aid, third party interventions, positive obligations and provisional measures, the evaluation of evidence and the use of external referencing by the Court, the protection of vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples, migrants, women and children. It also explores other contemporary issues such as coerced statements, medical negligence, the use of force, amnesties, forced disappearances, the right to water, judicial protection in times of emergency, the relation of the Inter-American Court with national courts and with other international jurisdictions like the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court, and with national courts, reparations and revisions of cases by the Inter-American Court, and present-day challenges to the Inter-American system of human rights. Due to its multifaceted and comprehensive character, this scholarly volume is an essential reference work for both legal scholars and practitioners working with regional human rights systems in general and with the Inter-American human rights system in particular.
A number of the issues raised in the publication will be discussed at the next IAHRN workshop, which will be hosted by Prof. Haeck and Dr Burbano Herrera at the University of Ghent on 29-30 January 2016.
Call for Submissions: Melbourne Journal of International Law
Source: International Law Reporter
The Melbourne Journal of International Law has issued a call for submissions for the first issue of its seventeenth volume. Here’s the call:
The Editors of the Melbourne Journal of International Law (‘MJIL’) are now inviting submissions on areas of interest in international law for Volume 17(1), to be published in July 2016.
For consideration for inclusion in the print issue of 17(1), authors should submit on or before January 31, 2016.
MJIL, Australia’s premier generalist international law journal, is a peer-reviewed academic journal based at Melbourne Law School in the University of Melbourne. MJIL publishes innovative scholarly research and critical examination of issues in international law.
MJIL’s coverage extends beyond public international law to articles addressing private international law, the intersection of international law with domestic law, global governance, and associated areas of transnational law.
MJIL will also consider interdisciplinary work which substantially contributes to international legal scholarship. If authors are uncertain whether their proposed topic is eligible for inclusion in MJIL they should contact the editors at email@example.com.
Timing of Submissions
MJIL accepts submissions on a rolling basis and will publish advance electronic copies of articles prior to print publication from 17(1) onwards.
The submissions deadline for consideration in Volume 17(1) is January 31, 2016. As MJIL will be publishing a special issue for issue 17(2), authors are encouraged to submit early so as to incorporate any revisions prior to print deadlines for 17(1).
Form of Submissions
MJIL accepts submissions in the form of articles, commentaries, case notes and book reviews. Articles should be in the vicinity of 10,000 words in length (excluding footnotes) and be an original and detailed contribution to international law scholarship. For instructions on submitting, please visit Instructions for Authors.
All articles, case notes and commentaries published in MJIL undertake a double blind refereeing process, involving at least two experts in that area of law. The editors endeavour to decide on whether submissions will proceed to refereeing within two weeks of receipt. Although MJIL does not require exclusive submission, the Editors will not consider pieces that have been accepted or published elsewhere.
Review essays will be reviewed solely by the Editors prior to publication. Publishers’ suggestions for books to be reviewed should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org, and hard copies of publications can be mailed to:
Melbourne Journal of International Law
Melbourne Law School
The University of Melbourne
VIC 3010 AUSTRALIA
Once accepted, authors will be contacted with more details on the editing and publication process. For further information, please contact the Editors at email@example.com.
Call for Submissions: Beyond Borders: Regional Dimensions and Dynamics of Transitional Justice
Source: International Law Reporter
The International Journal of Transitional Justice has issued a call for submissions for a special issue on “Beyond Borders: Regional Dimensions and Dynamics of Transitional Justice.” Here’s the call:
Special Issue 2017 – Call for Papers
Beyond Borders: Regional Dimensions and Dynamics of Transitional Justice
The International Journal of Transitional Justice invites submissions for its 2017 special issue entitled ‘Beyond Borders: Regional Dimensions and Dynamics of Transitional Justice’, to be guest edited by Pierre Hazan.
Dr. Hazan is an international expert on transitional justice and international criminal justice. He has collaborated with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and served as a UN expert with the special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights. He currently is a Special Advisor on Transitional Justice with the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. His book, Judging War, Judging History: Behind Truth and Reconciliation, received the Georges Dreyfus Prize.
Historically, transitional justice has focused either on states dealing with legacies of past human rights violations or on international standards and good practices for dealing with those legacies, as embodied by the UN. Little attention has been paid to the regional dimensions of transitional justice, despite the fact that states tend to compensate for their weaknesses by strengthening regional institutions and empirical evidence that demonstrates these institutions’ importance.
In this Special Issue, we encourage new thinking on the concept of regionalism: What new purchase does this perspective bring to our understanding of transitional justice? Which factors shape regional institutions and how they are used? And how does regionalism shape transitional justice mechanisms?
From an institutional perspective, regional political bodies such as the African Union and the European Union, as well as regional courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, play a major role in norm and standard setting. They create new human rights instruments, set major judicial precedents and in some cases act as key donors.
Regional institutions’ importance is also increasing as regions often face transnational challenges, particularly in terms of human rights violations that cross borders, which cannot be addressed solely at the national level. This is even more the case for states that have split apart and where civil society organizations seek to establish regional mechanisms like truth commissions to deal with past crimes, as with the REKOM initiative in the former Yugoslavia.
At the same time, the very concept of a ‘region’ is subject to debate. From a societal and cultural perspective, the borders of a region are arbitrarily defined. Is Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa or the Balkans a region? Yet, the populations within a given region often share in common parts of their history (such as colonialism) and certain cultural elements (such as ubuntu) that may influence the way transitional justice tools in the region are shaped, addressed and marketed to them.
These commonalities may give rise to an emulation process, through which states import some of the transitional justice features adopted in other countries that are perceived as relevant to their national contexts, while contesting others. For example, is the hostility towards the International Criminal Court in Africa in part a result of past history, when law was used as an instrument of domination by colonial powers?
In short, from an institutional and a societal and cultural perspective, the way transitional justice interferes or interfaces with borders – by crossing or ignoring them or by being unable to do so – happens in multiple ways within Africa, the Americas and Europe, in the global North and South. But what does it mean for regions without such regional institutions, such as Asia and the Middle East? In these cases, is a regional transitional justice approach a pertinent category? If not, how do or should countries engage with transitional justice experiences beyond their borders?
We expect this Special Issue to yield divergent views on central questions that will enrich our understanding of and engagement with this critical topic. Below are some key questions we have identified, which are only illustrative and do not exhaust the range of issues that deserve greater attention:
Do regional political or judicial institutions play an important role in shaping transitional justice tools and, if so, do they contribute to a feeling of ownership in transitional societies?
Is transitional justice the product of Judeo-Christian culture, or is it universal? If it is universal, why does it appear to be less developed in the Middle East and North Africa and in Asia?
Is the need to deal with the violent past universal, or is it a reflection of western ethnocentrism?
Are there significant differences in approaches to transitional justice in different regions? If yes, what explains these differences?
Is the way in which transitional justice tools are used in different regions a reflection of specific regional challenges?
Can and should (official) regional truth commissions be created despite the political obstacles?
How should we understand the role of religion and religious leaders in transitional justice efforts in different regions?
How do national, regional and international contexts – legal, political, institutional or other – interact with transitional justice
To what extent is the legacy of law in a given region the result of radically different historical experiences (for example, law being a tool for enforcing domination in the colonies), and how does this influence the possibilities of pursuing transitional justice?
To what extent is the European Union as a donor for transitional justice initiatives imposing a particular regional approach on recipient countries affected by different regional constraints?
The deadline for submissions is 1 July 2016.
Papers should be submitted online from the IJTJ webpage.
For questions or further information, please contact the Managing Editor at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Quality justice for all the member States of the Council of Europe SI
Source: Council of Europe
On the occasion of its 26th plenary meeting, the CEPEJ will publish a book entitled “High quality justice for all the member States of the Council of Europe”, written by Ramin Gurbanov, PhD in law, member of the CEPEJ Bureau and the CEPEJ working group on the evaluation of European judicial systems, scientific expert of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences and Judge, with the valuable input of Jean-Paul Jean, Chairman of the Working Group on evaluation of European judicial systems, Associate Professor of the Law Faculty at Poitiers, Chamber President of the Paris Court of Cassation, and the scientific advice of Jacques Bühler, Doctor of law, Chairman of the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management (CEPEJ-SATURN), Deputy Secretary General, Federal Supreme Court, Lucerne, Switzerland, and François Paychère, Doctor of law, Chairman of the CEPEJ working group on quality of justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL), President of the Court of Auditors of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland. In addition to a detailed presentation of the functioning of the CEPEJ and of its working groups, this publication recalls and explains the tools and methodologies developed by the CEPEJ. It draws an admirably concise picture of what the CEPEJ stands for today and where it came from.
Speech by Mr Ramin Gurbanov, member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ (Azerbaijan)
Powerpoint presentation by Mr Ramin Gurbanov, member of the Bureau of the CEPEJ (Azerbaijan)
CEPEJ Study No.22: High quality justice for all member States of the Council of Europe
Call for Papers for European Consensus Conference
Source: ECHR Blog
On 1 June 2016, the University of Portsmouth School of Law, the European University Institute and the McCoubrey Centre for International Law of the University of Hull Law School will be organising a conference on the European consensus (EuC) method of interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights, in Florence. This is the call for papers:
Should prisoners have voting rights? Should terminally ill patients have a right to assisted suicide? Should same-sex couples have a right to marriage or adoption? Few would argue that such legally complex, and morally and politically sensitive issues are subject to universally accepted normative responses. When these questions arise within a European normative framework, the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention) is expected to act as a buffer for idiosyncratic national differences so that common “European” answers and standards of protection can emerge. The ECtHR undoubtedly plays a pivotal role, given its position as the last-word interpreter of the Convention.
Yet, the idea of a court, let alone an international court, establishing “new” rights or significantly expanding the scope and meaning of existing ones is, of course, inherently controversial. Presumably, it is for this reason, and in an attempt to increase its external legitimacy, that the ECtHR has developed the interpretative method of EuC. The Court will only recognise a pan-European -thus common to all 47 signatory parties to the ECHR- standard in sensitive areas of social activity, if it can trace their existence to the (loosely defined) consensus of national jurisdictions, as this is evidenced in the practice of the national legal systems of the ECHR states. If no consensus is diagnosed, states are given wider margin of appreciation. As a result, Europe may legitimately accommodate multiple human rights standards within its normative borders in the spirit of constitutional pluralism.
EuC, and its symbiotic relationship to other interpretative techniques, inevitably raise significant legal, political and philosophical questions. By resorting to EuC the Court may appear to pre-empt or respond to criticisms of judicial activism and claim that evolution in the interpretation of the Convention is, in fact, born out of the practice and implicit will of it signatory parties, which are all sovereign states. But this is hardly sufficient to dissuade concerns regarding the appropriateness of consensus analysis in identifying norms in a “special” area of law, such as human rights.
The purpose of this two-day international conference is to study the function of EuC, to identify its impact on European human rights law and beyond, and to assess its merits and shortcomings by exploring the following three main strands of analysis.
1. Conceptualisation of EuC: This theme invites contributions that will purport to define and conceptualise EuC, that is to say, to explain what EuC is, how it functions and what its results and consequences are. Papers may discuss the methods (both quantitative and qualitative) that could be used for the conceptualisation of EuC, the theoretical lens (such as constitutionalism, legal pluralism etc.) through which EUC may be explained, the interrelation between EuC and other methods of interpretation (such as margin of appreciation, dynamic/evolutive, systemic integration etc.), how EuC compares to, converges with or diverges from the methods employed by courts in analogous positions (such as regional international human rights courts or national constitutional courts, including the US Supreme Court) and, more generally, any line of enquiry that may contribute to the understanding of EuC.
2. Evaluation of EuC: This theme invites contributions that aim to critically evaluate EuC, its use, usefulness, appropriateness and normative outputs. We expect analysis in that strand to be primarily normative in nature and attempt to situate EuC in the broader context of questions within Public law, Constitutional law, International law and the Philosophy of Law, purporting to answer who has the authority to make constitutive decisions about civil and political rights in a liberal democracy and how these decisions should be made.
3. The “spill-over” effects of EuC: The last theme invites contributions that will examine the impact of EuC beyond the confines of the ECHR, both within national legal systems and at the inter/supra-national levels. Is EuC (or its altera pars, namely the margin of appreciation doctrine) employed in some shape or form in other legal systems? Could / should other courts in Europe, and first and foremost the Court of Justice of the European Union, make use of EuC? Are European Union (EU) human rights institutions using EuC?
We are inviting contributions that will engage with these axes of enquiry from any disciplinary perspective. Contributions may adopt a variety of doctrinal or disciplinary approaches, ranging from Jurisprudence and Legal Theory to Constitutional law and from Political Science and Philosophy to European Public law, broadly defined.
Interested scholars should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words by 31 January 2016. Abstracts should contain the title of the paper, and the name title and affiliation of the author(s). Please send abstracts using the Building Consensus on European consensus conference webpage. If you wish to discuss topics or ideas informally, please contact Dr. Panos Kapotas at panos.kapotas at port.ac.uk.
Speakers will be informed of acceptance of their papers by 12 February 2016, and will be expected to submit a full paper of around 8.000 words (including footnotes) by 1st May 2016. Presentations should be no longer than 20 minutes in duration. The Conference will take place at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Speakers will be required to meet the cost of travel and accommodation.
Abstract submission by: 31/01/2016
Selection of papers by: 12/02/2016
Submission of papers by: 01/05/2016
Dr Panos Kapotas, University of Portsmouth, School of Law
Professor Dennis Patterson, European University Institute
Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, University of Hull Law School
Announcements: Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop; NYU School of Law Fellowships; CfP Building Consensus on European Consensus; 5th Annual Junior Faculty Forum for International Law
Source: EJIL Talk
1. Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop: ICSID at 50: Investment Arbitration as a Motor of General International Law? For many years, the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop – jointly organized by Rainer Hofmann (Frankfurt), Stephan W. Schill (Amsterdam), and Christian J. Tams (Glasgow) – has been a forum for the discussion of foundational issues of international investment law. This next workshop will run from 11-12 March 2016 and asks whether and to what extent international investment law and investor-State arbitration are ‘motors of general international law’? Contributions to this workshop focus on three areas in which investment law and arbitration might be seen as a motor of legal development: the law of dispute settlement, the law of treaties, and state responsibility. The program is available here; for edited collections that have grown out of earlier Frankfurt Investment Law Workshops see here, here and here. If you are interested in participating, please contact Sabine Schimpf, Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order, University of Frankfurt at S.Schimpf@jur.uni-frankfurt.de by 28 February 2016.
2. New York University School of Law Fellowships. New York University School of Law is currently accepting applications for the the following fellowships: (1) the Global Fellows Program, which offers an opportunity for academics, practitioners, government officials and post‐doctoral scholars from around the world to spend a semester or academic year in residence at NYU School of Law. The deadline for applications is 11 January 2016. See here for more information and to apply. Questions should be sent to email@example.com; (2) the Emile Noël Fellowship Program, the principle objective of which is scholarship and the advancement of research on the themes prioritized by the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice. For more information and to apply see here. The deadline for applications is 11 January 2016. Questions should be sent to JeanMonnet@nyu.edu; and (3) the Visiting Doctoral Researcher Program. Visiting Doctoral Researchers are doctoral candidates enrolled in a doctoral degree program at another institution abroad who wish to benefit from spending one year of their research at NYU School of Law. The deadline for applications is 15 February 2016. See here for more information and to apply. Questions should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
3. Reminder: Deadline for the Fifth Annual Junior Faculty Forum for International Law – NYU, June 2016. This is a reminder that the deadline for applications for the Fifth Annual Junior Faculty Forum for International Law, to be held at NYU on 27-29 June 2016, is fast approaching: it is 15 December 2015. Those who are keen to make an application are advised to consult the details of the application procedure set out here.