magnify
Home EJIL Analysis Announcements: Memorial for John Jones QC; CfP – Panel on Emotional Warfare and its Limits

Announcements: Memorial for John Jones QC; CfP – Panel on Emotional Warfare and its Limits

Published on June 26, 2016        Author: 

1. Memorial for John Jones QC. The Members of Doughty Street Chambers will be holding a celebration of the life and many personal and professional achievements of our much missed friend and colleague John Jones QC. All are welcome to join us at Middle Temple Hall (click here for directions) on Wednesday 6 July for a Memorial starting at 5pm followed by a reception in Middle Temple gardens. The Hall will be accessible from 4.30pm. There will also be a celebration in The Hague, to be held on Wednesday 29 June (venue to be confirmed; details will be available through our homepage). So we can cater appropriately please let us know if you plan to attend either event by sending us an e-mail (events {at} doughtystreet.co(.)uk). Please direct any telephone queries to Chelsea McLaren on 020 7404 1313. Messages of support can be sent to condolences {at} doughtystreet.co(.)uk and cards or letters can be sent to Chambers. These will be forwarded to John’s family, who will also be the beneficiaries of a fund we have set up in his memory (details available on request).

2. Call for Papers: Panel on Emotional Warfare and its Limits. The Hugo Valentin–Centrum of the Uppsala Universitet Emotional Warfare and its Limits is pleased to announce a call for papers for its upcoming panel on “Emotional Warfare and its Limits: Towards an Affective Turn in International Humanitarian Law”, organized in the context of the International Conference on “Historicising International (Humanitarian) Law? Could we? Should we?” on 6 – 8 October 2016. When and why did the law of armed conflict become “humanitarian”? What role do fear, envy, or friendship play in the regulation of war? Can law offer an effective way out of the irrationality of violence? Possible answers to these questions cannot be addressed by means of strictly legal arguments, and should find place in other disciplines which have been traditionally permeated by an emotional discourse.  Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be submitted by e-mail to Emiliano J. Buis (ebuis {at} derecho.uba(.)ar) and Ezequiel Heffes (ezequielheffes {at} gmail(.)com) no later than 18 July 2016. Abstracts should be accompanied by name, affiliation and e-mail address. Any questions about these themes or the suitability of a possible submission may be directed by e-mail as above.

Print Friendly
Filed under: EJIL Analysis
 

One Response

  1. Jakob Cornides Jakob Cornides

    Both in Marko Milanovic’s precedent post and in this one there is a lot of political speculation and conjecturing on what kind of deal might be struck between the EU and England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland respectively. This is all very fine – but this is a legal blog, not a place to express our political preferences (be they pro-EU or anti-EU, pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit, for or againt Scottish independence, etc).
    Whatever its political significance may be, from a purely legal point of view last week’s Brexit Referendum is a non-event. The UK still is a Member State of the EU with full rights and obligations. It has not notified its willingness to leave the EU, and the outcome of the referendum creates no obligation for H.M. Government to make such a notification.
    I am thus quite surprised to read that Commission President Juncker and EP Parliament Schulz have called on Cameron to make that formal notification tomorrow, and that indeed some Members of the EP are pushing for a (again: non-binding) Resolution to that effect. Since when is it the role of EU Institutions to push Member States to leave the EU? Should they not rather seek for constructive solutions to keep the UK within the fold?? Especially when, in the aftermath of the referendum, people inside the UK begin to realize the damage that leaving the EU will do to their country???
    Now is not the time for rushing things, but for taking a step back and cooling off.
    It may help in this context to recall that holding a referendum such as this has as such no legal relevance. There are only two ways for the UK to leave the EU. One is the procedure provided for under Article 50 TEU: a formal notification to the Council of the country’s decision to leave, which will be followed by a two year period for negotiations. The other would be to unilaterally discontinue membership (e.g. by formally revoking all domestic laws through which the UK implements its membership obligations. The first option would be the legal way out, while the second would be illegal under international law, and would definitely turn this into a very nasty affair.
    But the best thing would be if neither of the two happened. Every future UK Prime Minister, be he (or she?) pro-Brexit or not, must know that rash action will only place the UK in a very weak negotiating position. It is therefore perfectly understandable that there is a certain hesitation to trigger the Article 50 procedure. In fact, this hesitation can be something good, as it might buy some time that may be used by the UK and its citizens to give it a second thought.
    It is the UK, and the UK alone, that has the right to decide whether a notification under Article 50 will be made or not. Until then the UK is a Member State, and deserves the full loyalty of other Member States and of the EU institutions.