- The Main Exhibition: A Retrospective anniversary collection of articles published in EJIL over the past 25 years, featuring two articles per volume.
- Special exhibit 1: An aggregation into one chronological file all the Tables of Contents of EJIL.
- Special exhibit 2: An aggregation into one file of all the Editorials reflecting different styles and different sensibilities of various editors.
- Special exhibit 3: Book Review Editor, Isabel Feichtner, has selected 25 book reviews, one for each year, memorable for the book or for the Review.
- Special exhibit 4: All the Roaming Charges photographs have been aggregated into one file.
- Special exhibit 5: All the Last Page Poems have been aggregated into one file.
From time to time, we are asked about the relationship between EJIL and the European Society of International Law (ESIL). That relationship is simple: the Journal and the Society are two separate, but mutually supportive and complementary entities. Indeed, past and present EJIL Editors can boast, with parental pride, of having been present at the conception, as well as the birth, of the Society! From its inception, membership in ESIL has included automatic online and print subscriptions to EJIL – including very soon a tablet version. The relationship has only strengthened in recent years, with ESIL Presidents and Presidents-elect serving ex officio on the EJIL Board. It is in the spirit of that growing bond that we wholeheartedly share in ESIL’s 10-year celebrations, and have invited the following Guest Editorial from its leadership.
Ten years ago, the European Society of International Law (ESIL) organized its Inaugural Conference in Florence. Some papers were later published in the Baltic Yearbook of International Law but, other than that, most presentations at the event have long been forgotten. Yet that event was one of those moments where the participants still proudly recall that they were there: yes, I was there in Florence when ESIL started, I was there when the seed was planted.
Ten years later, although ESIL has matured rapidly with the development of a wide array of activities, the Society is still in its formative stage. There is a real sense that ESIL is beginning to realize its enormous potential for understanding and influencing international law in Europe and throughout the world. But this is not a self-propelling process. On a day-to-day basis, critical choices have to be made on the directions in which the Society can and should evolve. Read the rest of this entry…
For some, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in and of itself has become in many European (and American) circles, the enemy: another manifestation of unchecked globalization, the march of Capital trumping social, environmental and other rights, an unhealthy embrace of the Americans from whose clutches we have painfully managed to extricate ourselves, et cetera. Yes, there is some sarcasm or irony in the above, but visit the blogs and you will see where it comes from. My sarcasm should not be taken as a dismissal of all or any of these concerns. TTIP is far from Snow White. The concerns are not entirely fanciful. It is the final objective I oppose: a no-holds-barred attack on TTIP with the objective of tanking the whole agreement. If this is your view, do not waste your time here and skip to another item.
A wholesale defeat of TTIP, if achieved, will, I believe, be a big time Pyrrhic victory ̶ a hugely missed opportunity for the polities and the peoples of these polities.
I support the TTIP for two obvious and banal reasons. First, there is every reason to believe that on aggregate it will contribute significantly to an increase in welfare in both polities, enhance growth, contribute to stability and constitute another tool, in an embarrassingly empty toolkit, to combat future transatlantic-generated economic shocks. A large and often unspoken asset of TTIP rests not with the content of the various substantive disciplines but in establishing a culture of joint conversation, regulation and management. It will counter the litigious and confrontational culture of the WTO, where the EU and the USA find themselves typically as rivals and antagonists. Constructivist theory actually has something to say here as do the insights of Global Administrative Law scholarship. Read the rest of this entry…
The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law (Vol. 25, No. 4) is out today. As usual, the table of contents of the new issue is available at EJIL’s own website, where readers can also access those articles that are freely available without subscription. The free access article in this issue is Kristina Daugirdas’s Reputation and the Responsibility of International Organizations. We will hold a discussion of the article on the blog in the coming months. This week on the blog, we will continue this issue’s EJIL:Debate! on “The EU’s Human Rights Obligations in Relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects” with a rejoinder by Lorand Bartels. Subscribers have full access to the latest issue of the journal at EJIL’s Oxford University Press site. Apart from articles published in the last 12 months, EJIL articles are freely available on the EJIL website.
Also, a new episode of EJIL: Live Extra! is now online. In the new episode, EJIL Editor-in-Chief Joseph Weiler and Professor Andrew Clapham of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, discuss Prof. Clapham’s new edition of Brierly’s Law of Nations. They touch on the process of writing in Brierly’s “voice”, what has changed in the 50 years since Brierly wrote his last edition, and the great achievement of this important and concise book.
Roll of Honour
EJIL relies on the good will of colleagues in the international law community who generously devote their time and energy to act as peer reviewers for the large number of submissions we receive. Without their efforts our Journal would not be able to maintain the excellent standards to which we strive. A lion’s share of the burden is borne by members of our Boards, but of course we also turn to many colleagues in the broader community. We thank the following colleagues for their contribution to EJIL’s peer review process in 2014:
Tilmann Altwicker, Dia Anagnostou, Stelios Andreadakis, Asli Bâli, Arnulf Becker Lorca, Catherine Brölmann, Gian Luca Burci, Damian Chalmers, Cai Congyan, Kristina Daugirdas, Richard Gardiner, Lech Garlicki, Matthias Goldmann, Hans Morten Haugen, Laurence Helfer, Ian Johnstone, Alexandra Kemmerer, Jan Komárek, Dino Kritsiotis, Jürgen Kurtz, Ulf Linderfalk, David Malone, Petros Mavroidis, Frédéric Mégret, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Joanna Mossop, Jens Ohlin, Jacqueline Peel, Cecily Rose, Arie Rosen, Nicole Roughan, Martin Scheinin, Iain Scobbie, Ingo Venzke, Steven Wheatley, Nigel White.
The growth and development of any organization, even a journal, depends on the strength of its foundations. In the case of EJIL, those foundations are represented by its Board of Editors and its Scientific Advisory Board. To maintain their strength, the EJIL Boards benefit from change and renewal. Thus, I would like to sincerely thank Anne Peters, who has stepped down from the Board of Editors, for her dedicated commitment and service to the Journal. Anne has now assumed a leadership role in the newly established Journal of the History of International Law. We wish the new journal (and Anne) every success. Thanks also go to Francesco Francioni and Hélène Ruiz Fabri who have come to the end of their term on the Board of Editors, but will continue their valuable contribution to the Journal in the Scientific Advisory Board. Dapo Akande, Anthea Roberts and the newly-elected ESIL President, André Nollkaemper, have joined the Board of Editors. Finally, we welcome Jean d’Aspremont, Jan Klabbers, Sarah Nouwen and Anne van Aaken to the Scientific Advisory Board.
This issue opens with a short, reflective article by Jochen von Bernstorff on the proper role of international legal scholarship. Recapitulating themes and concerns sounded in other articles published earlier in this volume – see, especially, Anne Orford’s ‘Keynote’ and the article by Tilmann Altwicker and Oliver Diggelmann, both in issue 2 – von Bernstorff points to the problematic legacies of positivist 19th-century legal thought and argues that scholarship has the potential to act as a ‘cooling medium’ for international law and politics. In the next article in the issue, Kristina Daugirdas makes a not-dissimilar case for the importance of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. Taking the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti as a case study, Daugirdas argues that the Articles may turn out to provide a useful focal point for ‘transnational discourse’ among states and non-state actors about the compliance of international organizations with international law, thereby ultimately accruing to their legitimacy and effectiveness.
Our third article, by Richard Bellamy, continues with the theme of the legitimacy of international organizations. Bellamy takes on political constitutionalist objections that international human rights courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, lack democratic legitimacy. Rather than reject the premises of those objections he shows how an argument consistent with those premises may be constructed in favour of the European Court of Human Rights. The fourth article in this issue also relates political philosophy to international law. In his article, Oisin Suttle bridges the gap between global justice theory and international economic law, developing a typology of international coercion that promises to illuminate a variety of problems and positions in the regulation of international trade. Look out for the EJIL: Live! interview with Oisin Suttle in which we discuss some of the issues raised by this stimulating article.
Under our regular EJIL: Debate! rubric, Lorand Bartels brings us back to the legal obligations of international organizations. Bartels’ article considers the human rights obligations imposed on the European Union under EU law, in particular in relation to the extraterritorial effects of EU policy measures; and Enzo Cannizzaro provides a thoughtful Reply. The debate will continue on EJIL: Talk! with a Rejoinder by Lorand Bartels to Enzo Cannizzaro. Readers are invited to join the discussion there.
The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law will be published Wednesday. Beginning tomorrow, we will have a series of posts by Joseph Weiler – Editor in Chief of EJIL – plus a Guest Editorial by Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and André Nollkaemper, respectively, former and current Presidents of ESIL. These posts will appear in the Editorial in the upcoming issue. Here is the Table of Contents:
Guest Editorial: Ten Years of ESIL – Reflections; European Hypocrisy: TTIP and ISDS; Masthead Changes; Roll of Honour; In this Issue; Christmas Reading? Christmas Gifts? Some Suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief
Jochen von Bernstorff, International Legal Scholarship as a Cooling Medium in International Law and Politics
Kristina Daugirdas, Reputation and the Responsibility of International Organizations
Richard Bellamy, The Democratic Legitimacy of International Human Rights Conventions: Political Constitutionalism and the European Convention on Human Rights
Oisin Suttle, Equality in Global Commerce: Towards a Political Theory of International Economic Law
Lorand Bartels, The EU’s Human Rights Obligations in Relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects
Enzo Cannizzaro, The EU’s Human Rights Obligations in Relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects: A Reply to Lorand Bartels
Roaming Charges: Places of Permanence and Transition: On the Mekong River
The European Tradition in International Law
Helmut Philipp Aust, From Diplomat to Academic Activist: André Mandelstam and the History of Human Rights
Reut Yael Paz, A Forgotten Kelsenian? The Story of Helen Silving-Ryu (1906-1993)
Critical Review of International Governance
Thomas Schultz and Cédric Dupont, Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, Sophisticated Constructivism in Human Rights Compliance Theory. Review of Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks, Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights Through International Law; Courtney Hillebrecht, Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals: The Problem of Compliance; Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance
Hanne Sophie Greve, A Dictionary of Maqiao – In Medias Res
Friedrich Kratochwil. The Status of Law in World Society: Meditations on the Role and Rule of Law (Jan Klabbers)
Isabel V. Hull. A Scrap of Paper. Breaking and Making of International Law during the Great War (Oliver Diggelmann)
Mark Levene. The Crisis of Genocide. Vol. I: Devastation. The European Rimlands 1912–1938. Volume II: Annihilation. The European Rimlands 1939–1953 (Peter Hilpold)
Marc Jacob. Precedents and Case-based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice: Unfinished Business; Valériane König. Präzedenzwirkung internationaler Schiedssprüche: Dogmatisch-empirische Analysen zur Handels- und Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit[The precedential effect of international arbitral awards: Doctrinal and empirical analyses of the Commercial and Investment Arbitration] (Niels Petersen)
The Last Page
Jonathan Shaw, A Pronunciation Lesson
This has been another successful year for EJIL:Talk as readership of the blog continues to grow. We are grateful to you, our readers, for coming back to us again and again. A new addition to the European Journal of International Law this year has been the introduction of EJIL:Live! which is a series of video and audio podcasts released at the same time as the publication of each quarterly issue of the Journal. The video and audio episodes feature an in-depth discussion between the authors of one article that appears in the issue and EJIL’s Editor in Chief, Joseph Weiler. I have to say, on a personal note, that I have thoroughly enjoyed those discussions. To my mind, the spoken word, and the back and forth of dialogue, adds much value to the written text in the journal. They greatly enrich critical understanding of the author’s argument and also of the area in which it is situated. The authors not only explain the argument in their article, but also discuss the inspiration and motivations for writing the piece. In the discussion, the arguments are not only explored and challenged, but the authors are also pushed to explain the significance of the argument – why does it matter? how does it matter? There is much to be gained from listening or watching. In addition to discussion with authors, the audio podcasts also include a variety of news and reviews (including discussions from or about the blog).
EJIL: Live Extras! are shorter, in-a-nutshell, episodes which address a variety of topical and interesting issues. Earlier this month 3 episodes of EJIL:Live Extra! became available for viewing. They are interviews with Aharon Barak, former President of the Israeli Supreme Court on the Israeli Supreme Court’s approach to standing and justiciability; Brian Leiter, University of Chicago on whether freedom of religion deserves special protection; and André Nollkaemper, President of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) on the first 10 years of ESIL.
Below are our 20 most read posts of 2014. As is apparent from simply glancing at the list, Russia’s intervention in and subsequent annexation of Crimea was the issue that generated most interest among our readers this year. We wish you a very Happy New Year and a happy 2015!
2. Nico Krisch, Crimea and the Limits of International Law
3. Christian Marxsen, Crimea’s Declaration of Independence
6. Douglas Guilfoyle, So, you want to do a PhD in international law?
7. Marko Milanovic, Crimea, Kosovo, Hobgoblins and Hypocrisy
8. Philip Leach, Ukraine, Russia and Crimea in the European Court of Human Rights
Gary J. Bass. The Blood Telegram. Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide. New York, Toronto: Random House, 2014. Pp. 544. $16.95. ISBN: 9780307744623.
This may seem like an odd pick in a list of best books of the year for an international law forum. There is little in this book that expressly addresses international law, and the term ‘international law’ is only used a handful of times.
However, it is precisely the absence of law that makes the book compelling. It is a powerful reminder of the frailty of international law in international crises. The weakness of international law in such moments may have been particularly apparent in the Nixon era, but of course is more generally relevant.
The story that Gary Bass, a political scientist at Princeton, tells us is not totally unknown. [See for earlier discussions eg Srinath Raghavan, 1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh (Harvard University Press: 2013); Deborah Mayersen, Annie Pohlman Genocide and Mass Atrocities in Asia: Legacies and Prevention (Routledge, 2013). Also Samantha Power’s A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (Basic Books, 2002) has relevant insights.] Much has been disclosed already about the decision of the United States in 1971 not to use its powers to stop the killing of an estimated 300,000 Bengals (most of them Hindus) by the Pakistani Army. The US also did not act to prevent the fleeing of about 10 million Bengals to India. The US found it more important to maintain good relations with the Pakistani president Yahya Khan so that he could serve as a liaison with China and prepare the way for the opening to China. Moreover, they wished to strengthen and prepare Pakistan for battle with Cold War enemy India. The US not only wilfully abstained from pressuring Yahya Khan to change his ways. Virtually the entire Pakistani military was equipped with American weaponry and depended on the United States to keep it operating.
What makes the account by Bass a must-read is not so much this tragedy as such, but the gripping and excruciating detail in which it zooms in on the doings of Nixon and Kissinger, who was at that time Nixon’s national security adviser. Read the rest of this entry…
This is Part III of the Keynote speech delivered at ESIL’s 10th Anniversary Conference, held in Vienna, 4-6 September 2014. Parts I and II were published last week. The full version will be published in EJIL in a subsequent issue.
It is time to cry “Wolf” – since Europe finds itself with its basic, most fundamental, if often unstated, assumptions of security evaporating. Of course it would be fanciful, undesirable and unnecessary to imagine that the Pax Americana could be replaced by some form of Pax Europea. Unnecessary because the USA is not disappearing. But the evident weakening of its constraining and restraining power — the Authoritativeness Deficit — has to be made somehow whole.
So what role for Europe? Surely it does not mean and should not mean that Europe would simply fill in the American gaps and play a slightly or significantly more sonorous second fiddle to the USA by, for example, making a heftier contribution to NATO. It means, in the first place, that Europe has seriously to reassess its own self understanding of its global responsibilities. Though this might seem a platitudinous and hence easy to achieve step, it is arguably the most difficult and crucial if, indeed, it is not to remain platitudinous and would represent a veritable shift in political consciousness. In the second place it has seriously to upgrade its autonomous Global Authoritativeness, its own constraining and restraining power and from that, and in that, position interact with the USA and the rest of the world. Not a superpower, but an indispensable power. It is a tall order but setting for a moment politics aside, not an impossible one, since the actual toolkit does not need to be created ex nihili.
Sure, militarily, Europe’s credibility is risible, and has been so for long. Think Bosnia and Kosovo, think even Libya. But it is in the paradoxical position that militarily, the European whole is smaller than the sum of the parts. This well known paradox, the result of national interests, jealousies, pride, inertia not to say pettiness, is startling, but it is also a silver lining since there is a huge amount of already existing capacity simply terribly badly utlized. Europe’s economic clout, as a trading bloc, is second to none, greater than most and potentially a formidable tool of foreign policy and security, glimmers of which could be witnessed as Europe finally began to get its act together in the Ukraine crisis, but therein lies the rub – its ability to get its act together. Politically, too, one does not start from zero. United (when it is) in its rich diversity offers a veritable European foreign policy an interesting, even unique potential of foreign action utilizing historical ties and connections of its various Member States as points of entry, bridge and alliance building towards friend and foe alike and the ability to converse with nuance and in multiple political idioms. Morally, both nationally and in the form of the European Union Europe has effectively shed its colonial baggage and it does not carry nearly the weight of suspicion with which US foreign policy is encumbered. Effectively melded together and used with the kind of adroitness which some of the individual Member States are renowned for, simply underscores the potential of existing capacities even before any serious upgrading is to take place. One is not starting from Zero. Read the rest of this entry…