We open this issue with a challenging article by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke on the quest for democratic legitimacy of international adjudication in an age of both globalization and fragmentation. If this article sets the theoretical scene, the following two contributions give flesh and bones to such a concern and its challenges by looking, albeit in different ways, at the intertwinement between the international and the national realms. On the one hand, Marlies Glasius addresses the legitimacy gap that might exist between an international court and the realities of a national situation by studying the particular case of international criminal justice. Should international criminal courts be democratically accountable to populations affected by crimes in order to be legitimate? On the other hand, Carlos Espósito and Carrillo-Santarelli analyse the legitimatory function that national judges can exert in relation to international law. How can judicial actors situated at the national level operate as protectors of global legal goods? Lastly, David Koller explores another facet of the situatedness of international law: its cartography as an historicized narrative which gives to international law a more or less explicit normative direction.
As part of our occasional series, Critical Review of International Jurisprudence, we publish three pieces that shed light on some important recent developments. In the first piece, Marko Milanovic, a new Member of our Scientific Advisory Board, critically examines the reasoning behind the 2011 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Al Skeini v. United Kingdom and Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, as well as their broad policy implications regarding ECHR member state action abroad and their implementation of various Security Council measures. In the second piece, Matthew Parish studies a recent opinion of the European Court of Justice, striking down a proposed European and Community Patents Court; he stresses and questions the importance of the ECJ’s self-perception as the final arbiter of EU law in its ruling. In the third piece, Agnieszka Szpak reviews the jurisprudence of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals in regard to the definition of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as protected groups against genocide.
With Roaming Charges, we invite you to experiment visually the human condition through the contemplation of Moments of Dignity: Bicycle Repair Man, Peking. Reminder: Photos from our readers are welcome.
The EJIL:Debate! in this issue is between Jose Alejandro Carballo Leyda and Eyal Benvenisti, revolving around the scope of the occupant’s prescriptive powers in the occupied territory as defined by Article 64 of the IV Geneva Convention.
Our occasional series, The European Tradition in International Law, focuses on an international scholar, Nicolas Politis, whose work and life emphasize that lawyers, as men, are products of their time; in this case, the interwar period. Following an introduction by Linos-Alexander Sicilianos and Thomas Skouteris, co-editors of the symposium, Marilena Papadaki sketches a general intellectual portrait of Nicolas Politis. Robert Kolb situates Politis in the interwar sociological jurisprudence and Umut Özsu emphasizes his anti-formalistic stance towards international law and his commitment to extra-legal considerations. Nicholas Tsagourias takes issue with the contribution of Politis to the outlawry of war and the definition of aggression and Maria Gavouneli recounts his polemic against the ‘anachronism’ of the law of neutrality.
The issue concludes with The Last Page poem, The Second Wave by Patricia E. Palacios Zuloaga.