The time has come to renew our Board of Editors and Scientific Advisory Board. We thank Iain Scobbie for his valuable service to the Journal, particularly as blog master for EJIL: Talk!, and we welcome Jean d’Aspremont and Jan Klabbers to the SAB. Dapo Akande and Anthea Roberts will now join the Board of Editors, whilst Francesco Francioni, after a number of years on the Editorial Board, will return to the SAB. We thank him for his committed and extraordinarily constructive contribution to the Journal.
We are pleased to open this issue with a second entry under our new rubric, EJIL: Keynote. In this lightly revised text of her lecture to the 5th European Society of International Law Research Forum, Anne Orford traces, with characteristic elegance and insight, the changing notions of science and scientific method that have shaped the international legal profession over the past century. Her account suggests important lessons for contemporary debates regarding the profession’s relevance and ability to respond to world problems.
The next three articles in the issue illustrate the growing toolkit of methodologies for the study of international law. Sergio Puig’s study of the social structure of investor-state arbitration makes innovative use of network analytics. Sharing some of the same methodological inclinations, Grégoire Mallard provides an extraordinarily rich historical-sociological account of the formation of the nuclear non-proliferation ‘regime complex’. And Tilmann Altwicker and Oliver Diggelmann adopt a broadly social constructivist approach to analyse the techniques used to create progress narratives in international law.
This issue includes a selection of papers from the Second Annual Junior Faculty Forum for International Law, held at the University of Nottingham in May 2013. Surveying the discourse and practice of minority language rights, Moria Paz analyses the striking disparity between the rhetoric of maximal diversity-protection found in human rights treaties and the writings of scholars, on the one hand, and the much more attenuated rights that are actually recognized in the jurisprudence and practice of international human rights adjudicatory bodies, on the other. Arnulf Becker Lorca recounts a ‘pre-history’ of self-determination that highlights the role of semi-peripheral élites in converting that political concept into an international legal right. We hope to publish one or two more papers from the Second Annual Junior Faculty Forum in future issues of the Journal.
In Roaming Charges, we feature a photograph of Places of Social and Financial Crisis: Dublin 2014. Read the rest of this entry…
(Excerpt from the forthcoming Editorial of EJIL 25:2)
Far beyond the question of whether or not Council should feel obligated, or should even if not obligated, to select as President of the Commission the Lead Candidate of the largest party in the European Parliament, is a far more profound issue: should the President of the Commission be ‘Political but not Partisan’ (the Barroso thesis) or should voter preference in choosing not only this or that President but this or that party (with an ideological line) be translated into the policies espoused by the President of the Commission and indeed the Commission itself.
Strange as it may seem, it appears that this issue was not addressed with real seriousness even within Parliament itself and has not been a central part of the debate about the selection of the next President even on the eve of the Summit. David Cameron has (for the most part) based his objection on the specific political convictions (as he sees them) of Juncker as regards the future of the Union and not to the potential sea change which the Lead Candidate exercise potentially ushers.
But first, is Council really obligated to follow the election results in this manner?
I think the argument based on Article 17 TEU that the European Council is obligated to follow the Parliamentary choice is overstated both as a matter of law and as a matter of politics.
The Editorial Board of the European Journal of International Law is delighted to announce the launch of the Journal’s official podcast, EJIL: Live! Regular episodes of EJIL: Live! will be released in both video and audio formats to coincide with the publication of each issue of the Journal, and will include a wide variety of news, reviews, and interviews with the authors of articles appearing in that issue.
The first video episode features an extended interview between the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Joseph Weiler, and Maria Aristodemou, whose article “A Constant Craving for Fresh Brains and a Taste for Decaffeinated Neighbours” appears in issue 25:1. The first audio episode features a shorter, edited version of the same interview, as well as conversations with the Journal’s Book Review Editor, Isabel Feichtner, and the Editors of EJIL: Talk!, Dapo Akande and Marko Milanovic.
Episodes of EJIL: Live! can be accessed, in both audio and video formats, via the EJIL website at www.ejil.org and EJIL:Talk! at www.ejiltalk.org. EJIL: Live! is also available by subscribing to our EJIL: Live! channel on YouTube for videos and our EJIL: Live! account on SoundCloud to listen to our audio podcasts. Additional, special episodes will also be released from time to time to address a range of topical issues.
Stay tuned in with EJIL: Live!
On 26-28 June 2014, in Florence, the European University Institute and NYU-La Pietra will host the Inaugural Conference of the newly established International Society of Public Law (ICON•S).
We invite all our readers to submit proposals for either individual papers, or even more ambitiously, proposals for panels which, if selected, will be presented at the Inaugural Conference. Full details, modules for submitting proposals and for registering for the conference may be found at the society’s website. Registration for the Inaugural Conference includes the first annual membership fee in ICON•S and a free one-year online subscription to I•CON, the International Journal of Constitutional Law.
- Why create a new international learned society – are there not enough already?
- Why public law – if we typically teach Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, or International Law (and now the much à la mode Global Law)?
- And why does the word “comparative” not feature in the title of the new Society? Surely if we bring together constitutionalists from, say, Japan and Canada or administrative lawyers from Italy and Turkey – their common language will be Comparative Law?
The initiative to create an International Society of Public Law emerged from the Editorial Board of I•CON – the International Journal of Constitutional Law. For several years now I•CON has been, both by choice and pursuant to the cartographic reality of the field, much more than a journal of comparative constitutional Law. I•CON has expanded its interests, range of authors, readers, Editorial Board members and, above all, issues covered, to include not only discrete articles in fields such as Administrative Law, Global Constitutional Law, Global Administrative Law and the like, but also – and increasingly so – scholarship that reflects both legal reality and academic perception; scholarship which, in dealing with the challenges of public life and governance, combines elements from all of the above with a good dose of political theory and social science. That kind of remapping of the field is apparent also in EJIL. Its focus remains of course international law, but the meaning of international law today will often include many elements of the above. Read the rest of this entry…
Fifty years have passed since the European Court of Justice gave what is arguably its most consequential decision: Van Gend en Loos. The UMR de droit comparé de Paris, the European Journal of International Law (EJIL), and the International Journal of Constitutional Law (I•CON) decided to mark this anniversary with a workshop on the case and the myriad of issues surrounding it. In orientation our purpose was not to ‘celebrate’ Van Gend en Loos, but to revisit the case critically; to problematize it; to look at its distinct bright side but also at the dark side of the moon; to examine its underlying assumptions and implications and to place it in a comparative context, using it as a yardstick to explore developments in other regions in the world. The result is a set of papers which both individually and as a whole demonstrate the legacy and the ongoing relevance of this landmark decision.
This symposium illustrates, if an illustration were needed, the rationale that underlies the creation of the new International Society for Public Law. It also marks a publishing innovation for us: there is a single Table of Contents of the Symposium in EJIL and I•CON. But the articles are split between the two journals. It was not always easy to decide which should be published in either journal but this joint venture enabled us to bring to print a larger than usual symposium.
It is my custom to publish in the first issue of the year some of our vital statistics for the year ending. One particular vital statistic concerns the number of downloads of EJIL articles in any given year. To be clear, we measure the number of downloads of all EJIL articles, not just those published in the year in question. The latest stats we have are from 2012, which saw 512,000 downloads. It is up from 400,000 or so in the previous year. It is an astonishing figure provided by OUP and I asked that it be audited. They stand by their figure. The large number is explained by two factors: a sizeable number of EJIL articles are used in classrooms and in course packs and reading lists – resulting in thousands of downloads around the world by students. And of course our ‘near’ open-access policy, whereby all articles more than a year old become part of our free archive, is another critical factor. Be that as it may, if you publish in EJIL you are likely to be read and often used in the classroom; if you read EJIL, you are in good, if crowded, company (unless you have the habit of downloading and not reading – certainly cheaper than photocopying and not reading).
I have already expressed my scepticism of the various ‘bibliometrics’ of journals in an earlier Editorial (23 EJIL (2012) no. 3) I find the much touted ‘impact factor’ most laughable, skewed as it is by the number of articles you publish per annum – the fewer, the better you are likely to do. We get penalized by our large number of shorter pieces – debates, reactions, critical jurisprudence and critical governance rubrics and the like. Much more significant would be the number of citations. This is not laughable but still earns my chagrin since the databases are so skewed in this instance towards the American domestic legal journal market and ignore for the most part citations in non-English language journals. No sour grapes here: we do very well regardless.
Various outfits run these stats. I believe the most serious and intelligent is that put out by Washington and Lee University in the United States, as a service to authors trying to choose publication venues which will give most exposure to their articles. It explains the vagaries of Impact Factor and offers a ‘combined’ score of citations (66%) and ‘impact factor’ (33%). In its class (specialized, refereed) EJIL is number one among non-USA legal journals. In overall ranking (US and Non-USA) it ranks 4th in terms of citation and 10th in its combined score. (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law – a very worthy journal, used I imagine by a zillion American criminal lawyers, ranks as number 9 – you get the point). Read the rest of this entry…
We wish to thank the following colleagues who generously gave their time and energy to EJIL as external reviewers in 2013. Naturally, this does list does not include the dedicated members of our Editorial Boards and our Associate Editor.
Philip Alston, Antony Anghie, Helmut Aust, Asli Bali, Lorand Bartels, Tim Buthe, Graeme Dinwoodie, Abby Deshman, George Downs, Angelina Fisher, Mónica García-Salmones Rovira, Richard Gardiner, Bryant Garth, Matthias Goldmann, Peter Goodrich, Andrew Guzman, Laurence Helfer, Robert Howse, Ian Johnstone, Jan Klabbers, Jan Komarek, Martti Koskenniemi, David Kretzmer, Dino Kritsiotis, Nico Krisch, Jürgen Kurtz, Brian Lepard, George Letsas, David Luban, Christopher MacLeod, Lauri Mälksoo, David Malone, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Frédéric Mégret, Tzvika Nissel, Angelika Nussberger, Sergio Puig, Donald Regan, Stephen Schill, Gregory Shaffer, Thomas Skouteris, Anna Sodersten, Alan Sykes, Michael Waibel, Steven Wheatley
Wearing my hat of Editor-in-Chief offers occasionally a better vantage point to spot trends compared to the reader of individual issues. One has the pipeline in view as well as the huge number of articles which are submitted and which we are unable to publish. One distinct trend is the increased number of articles submitted making use of quantitative data and analysis. In this issue we publish Dia Anagnostou and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, ‘Domestic Implementation of European Court of Human Rights Judgments: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter’, with a Reply by Erik Voeten. In the pipeline are articles by Sergio Puig, ‘Social Capital in the Arbitration Market’ (watch out for this one – it will resonate, I am sure); Cecily Rose and Shashank Kumar, ‘A Study of Lawyers Appearing before the International Court of Justice, 1999-2012’; and Thomas Schultz and Cédric Dupont, ‘Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-Empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study’. And these are just a few of many more that have been submitted. Time will tell whether this becomes a regular ‘thick’ part of international legal scholarship.
Even aside from the joint EJIL-I•CON Symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the seminal Van Gend en Loos decision, this issue offers a cornucopia of innovative scholarship on international law. We start by introducing a new rubric, EJIL: Keynote!, under which we intend to publish especially noteworthy conference presentations and other public addresses. In the first lecture to be published under this rubric, Sir Daniel Bethlehem argues that the traditional ‘geography of statehood’ is of decreasing importance in the face of new global flows ̶ of information, capital, goods, services, and people. Combining the new rubric with the well-established EJIL: Debate! format, David S. Koller and Carl Landauer offer two Replies that will certainly stimulate further reflections on continuity and change in the relationship between geography and international law.
The two articles that follow demonstrate, once again, EJIL’s commitment to giving equal attention to both theoretical and doctrinal aspects of international law. Maria Aristodemou’s article applies the insights and techniques of Lacanian psychoanalysis to public international law itself, appraising the latter as a thoroughly neurotic discipline; animated, challenging and droll, this piece will be required reading for anyone interested in keeping pace with the cutting edge of international legal theory. Christopher Wadlow’s article, by contrast, addresses a series of relatively specific problems arising under the TRIPS Agreement, of a conceptual and doctrinal nature. We think both are excellent in their respective genres.
Following our symposium revisiting Van Gend en Loos, Roaming Charges returns to Moments of Dignity, with a photograph of a pre-wedding moment in Peking.
In a further entry under our EJIL: Debate! rubric, we have, as mentioned, an article by Dia Anagnostou and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi which examines the domestic implementation of rulings by the European Court of Human Rights in nine states, concluding that the main obstacles to compliance can be found in domestic policy process, legal infrastructure, and institutional capacity. Eric Voeten’s Reply engages with Anagnostou and Mungiu-Pippidi on methodological grounds, showing how the application of more sophisticated statistical methods to a more extensive data-set might produce more nuanced substantive conclusions. Together, these two pieces indeed provide compelling evidence of the growing interest in—and potential insights to be gained from—empirical, numerical and statistical studies in international law.
In our occasional series, Critical Review of International Governance, Rosa Freedman tackles the controversy over the role of the United Nations in causing the recent cholera outbreak in Haiti, exploring whether a human rights-based challenge to the UN’s immunity may be mounted.
The Last Page in this issue presents a poem entitled Bhopal, by Keith Ekiss.