magnify
Home 2017 January (Page 4)

How Much Public International Law Scholarship is There?

Published on January 10, 2017        Author: 

Two years ago I started to try and keep track of and categorize all of the PIL books published in a year. That yielded a figure of about 400 in English, French, and German. I wanted to count journal articles too but soon realized it was too big a job and one I couldn’t justify spending time on. Add to that the increasing number of well-researched blog posts and even for professional scholars just keeping up with all that is published must be daunting.

untitled1In the hope of providing a solution we have been developing a web-based tool to help scholars spend less time finding out what has been published on a topic and more time analysing and assessing it. The fruit of our labour is called ResearchTrack which provides information about newly published scholarship with links to the originals where access to the full content may be available, and will cover outputs from all publishers. We are opening it up to the public from today. The current version is a free “beta” version i.e. it is being used for a pilot study (running to the end of February 2017) during which we will hope to get lots of feedback about the overall usefulness of the idea and how we can improve it for a permanent version (should there prove to be sufficient interest). The pilot phase has two disciplines: Public International Law and International Relations.

Coverage

In terms of coverage we track books, journal articles, and substantive blog pieces. During this pilot phase it only covers English language materials systematically but I would like to hear from any teams who might be interested in helping us to broaden out. Our team of external editors decide whether something merits inclusion based purely on whether it is potentially of interest to a PIL researcher; inclusion does not reflect an assessment of quality.

Antecedents

I should acknowledge the existence of other projects which have also attempted to fill this need. One is the now defunct Weekly International Law Digest produced by Don Anton which listed in a weekly PDF everything that had come out in PIL, and the other of course is the still active International Law Reporter run by the indefatigable Jacob Katz Cogan.

untitled2ResearchTrack differs from the latter in that our team of editors tags everything with subjects from our taxonomy of 300+ items and adds filters for geography. Users register and then personalize their data feed by choosing which topics they wish to track. You can choose as many topics as you want and easily add or remove new ones. Whenever you log in you will see a number showing you how many new items have been published in your areas of interest. Our hope is that in addition to being useful for tracking the latest scholarship it will over time become a way of building up a literature review on any given topic.

Pilot Phase

During the pilot phase which will run until the end of February 2017 we invite all PIL researchers to register, try it out, and tell us what you think. We are particularly keen on feedback about coverage (are we missing anything), types of content (what, besides books, blogs, and journals would you like to see tracked), usability of the site, and of course bugs. There is a feedback page (accessed by clicking on the arrow at the bottom of the page which opens up a small panel of options) or feel free to email me directly at john.louth {at} oup(.)com.

 
Comments Off on How Much Public International Law Scholarship is There?

Legal Bindingness of Security Council Resolutions Generally, and Resolution 2334 on the Israeli Settlements in Particular

Published on January 9, 2017        Author: 

As I have read commentary on the recently adopted resolution by the U.N. Security Council (Resolution 2334) addressing Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, I’ve noticed a number of commentators who appear to assume that, since this resolution was not explicitly adopted in exercise of the Council’s Chapter VII powers, therefore all of its operative provisions are per se legally non-binding. Orde Kittrie, writing over at Lawfare, seems to make this assumption clear when he writes:

“Resolution 2334 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and is not legally binding. The resolution does not create additional legal requirements on Israel, nor does the resolution require (or even explicitly encourage) U.N. member states to impose sanctions on Israel in response to Israeli settlement activity.”

I thought this would be a good opportunity to write briefly to clarify that the legal obligation for U.N. Charter states parties to comply with the decisions of the Security Council, contained in Article 24 and 25 of the Charter, is not contingent upon the Council’s acting in exercise of its Chapter VII powers. Any decision of the Security Council is legally binding upon all U.N. member states, whether or not the text of the resolution explicitly references Chapter VII.

Rather, the key question for determining whether a particular provision of a Security Council resolution is legally binding on member states (i.e. whether the provision is a “decision” of the Security Council), including the specific addressee of the resolution, is whether the Council has chosen to use words within the provision indicating its intent to create a legally binding obligation.

The International Court of Justice made these points clear in its 1971 Namibia advisory opinion, in Paragraphs 108-114. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Announcements: Workshop on the Use of “Authorities” in International Dispute Settlement; CfP – Solidarity and the Promotion of Peace and Security

Published on January 8, 2017        Author: 

1. Workshop on the Use of “Authorities” in International Dispute Settlementc. Young scholars and PhD candidates interested in empirical methods in international law are invited to submit expressions of interest for this workshop on the use of “authorities” in international dispute settlement. The workshop will not involve the publication of papers, although works-in-progress will be discussed by the participants. By bringing together young and established scholars using empirical methods, this workshop aspires to provide inspiration and practical guidance. The workshop, funded by the British Academy, is organised by Dr Michael Waibel and will take place on 20 March 2017, at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge. Expressions of interest shall be sent to Damien Charlotin (dc655 {at} cam.ac(.)uk) by 10 January 2017 with a description of your research interests and how they relate to the theme of the workshop, plus a CV with a list of publications. The organizer will let applicants know by 20 January 2017 about the outcome of their application. 

2. Call for Papers: Solidarity and the Promotion of Peace and Security. The ESIL Interest Group on Peace and Security will submit a proposal for a panel on “Solidarity and the Promotion of Peace and Security” during the 13th ESIL Annual Conference in Naples (7 – 9 September 2017). This panel will invite papers that address the following questions: 1. What is the nature and what are the ethical foundations of the principle of solidarity? 2. What are the implications of the constitutional reading of the principle of solidarity? 3. What specific responsibilities are attached to the principle of solidarity?; 4. How does solidarity contribute to the effective realisation of public goods? 5. What are the specific expressions of solidarity in the fields of jus ad bellum and jus in bello? Please submit an abstract in PDF (in English or French) of no more than 800 words by 24:00 on 16 January 2017 (London-UK time) to: theodore.christakis@univ-grenoble-alpes.frstarski {at} mpil(.)denicholas.tsagourias@sheffield.ac.uk. Applicants will be informed of the selection committee’s decision no later than 27 January 2017.  The following information must be provided with each abstract: the author’s name, contact details, affiliation and as well as brief CV listing relevant publications.

Filed under: Announcements and Events
 
Comments Off on Announcements: Workshop on the Use of “Authorities” in International Dispute Settlement; CfP – Solidarity and the Promotion of Peace and Security

Identifying the Language of Peace: Developing the Practical and Theoretical Framework of Peace-Making

After a year which saw an unprecedented number of people displaced by violent conflict, and peace processes suffering setback after setback, from the repeated ceasefire violations reported in Yemen to the difficult process of bridging differences in Syria, faith in peace-making appears to be at its lowest. But when faced with the devastating impact of conflicts around the world, there can be no question of the need to redouble the efforts directed at achieving negotiated peace; as illustrated by the case of Colombia, peace is attainable even in the most entrenched of conflicts. In most cases, redoubling efforts requires going back to the drawing board, reframing issues and suggesting different approaches in order to create novel solutions to seemingly intractable problems. In such cases, the ability to draw on the practice of previous agreements drafted in similar situations may prove invaluable to the process; but without a consolidated and issue-based digest of such previous practice, this means having to spend days combing through possibly hundreds of documents (often on very short notice) each time, while there is still a chance of missing at least some of the relevant results.

Furthermore, identifying the range of options utilised in previous practice is only the first step; the negotiating parties must then consider whether these approaches comply with, or appear to depart from, international law. This in itself can be a cause of great controversy within peace-making processes: for instance, is it legal for peace agreements to grant blanket amnesties, including to (suspected) war criminals? Such controversies, as well as the ever-growing attention to concepts such as lex pacificatoria and jus post bellum, highlight the need to clarify the underlying relationship between peace and international law in specific areas.

It is in response to these concerns that the Language of Peace research tool – launched at the UN Secretariat in New York on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 – was developed, allowing instant search capability across the provisions of around 1,000 peace agreements, categorized according to the issues they address, from negotiating agendas through human rights to power-sharing arrangements. This post identifies two areas in which Language of Peace seeks to contribute to the development of international peace-making. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Trumping International Law? Implications of the 2016 US presidential election for the international legal order

Published on January 3, 2017        Author: 

Any assumptions about the implications of the 2016 US presidential election for international law are premature and tentative. There is no proper foreign policy programme against which one could evaluate the future policy of the new administration. We know from Trump’s announcements and from a foreign policy speech of 27 April 2016 that he opposes the Paris Agreement, the WTO, NAFTA, TTP and TTIP as well as the nuclear deal with Iran. Thus, political analysts immediately described the election of Trump as ‘the beginning of a new and darker global order’ and announced the end of the post-World War II order. International lawyers assume that a post-human rights agenda lies ahead. Do we finally face the end of the liberal international order and globalization more generally?

Of course, there are also other voices: those who compare a possible withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement to its non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol; those who hold that globalization is anyway inevitable; those who stress that populism in Latin America, where opposition to globalization was very strong, is in decline again; those who compare Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan; and those who count on new technologies and the young generation. If it was just for the election of Trump I would probably share the idea that his policy may only represent a temporary slump in the overall progressive development of the international legal order. However, the symbolism of Trump’s election is not an isolated incident but fits into a more general pattern. Certain phenomena indicate that we currently observe a crisis of international law of unusual proportions which requires us to reassess the state and role of law in the global order Read the rest of this entry…

 

Most Read Posts 2016

Published on January 1, 2017        Author: 

Happy New Year to all EJIL:Talk readers! In many ways, 2016 was a remarkable year for international law. It is hard to pick a standout event or development but perhaps 2016 will be remembered as the year when international lawyers began to think seriously, across the board, about the legal processes relating to how states exit from international commitments. It is probably fair to say that international lawyers have spent far more time thinking about the processes by which international law obligations are imposed on states and other actors than on the processes by which those international law commitments might cease to be binding.  The UK’s Brexit referendum of June 2016 means we now have to think about how the UK unwinds from its membership of the EU. The notices of withdrawal from the ICC Statute by South Africa, Burundi, and the Gambia also raise questions about treaty withdrawal. Then the election in the US of Donald Trump raises the prospect of US withdrawal from a range of treaties dealing with climate change, trade and the Iranian nuclear deal. All of this might suggest that research into issues relating to treaty withdrawal would constitute a profitable research agenda for 2017! All of these were covered on this blog in 2016 but clearly there will be more to say.

I would like to thank all of our readers but also all of those who wrote posts on EJIL:Talk! in 2016! Below is a list of the posts that were most read in 2016. Some of these posts were written in earlier years.

20) After Trump: China and Russia move from norm-takers to shapers of the international legal order, Anne Peters (2016)

19) Permanent Imminence of Armed Attacks: Resolution 2249 (2015) and the Right to Self Defence Against Designated Terrorist Groups, Marc Weller (2015)

18) A Plea Against the Abusive Invocation of Self-Defence as a Response to Terrorism, Olivier Corten (2016)

17) Grand Chamber Judgment in Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland, Marko Milanovic (2016)

16) Russia and China Challenge the Western Hegemony in the Interpretation of International Law, Lauri Mälksoo (2016)

15) Turkey’s Derogation from the ECHR – What to Expect?, Martin Scheinin (2016)

14) On My Way Out – Advice to Young Scholars II: Career Strategy and the Publication Trap, Joseph Weiler (2016)

13) Self-Defense and Non-State Actors: Indeterminacy and the Jus ad Bellum, Marko Milanovic (2010)

12) The Bashir Case: Has the South African Supreme Court Abolished Immunity for all Heads of States?, Dapo Akande (2016)

11) ICTY Convicts Radovan Karadzic, Marko Milanovic (2016)

10) European Court Decides Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda, Marko Milanovic (2011) Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Most Read Posts 2016