In This Issue

Written by and

The last issue of EJIL’s 30th anniversary volume opens with our ‘Afterword’ rubric, in which Janne E. Nijman, Francesca Iurlaro and Benjamin Straumann react to Martti Koskenniemi’s EJIL Foreword, ‘Imagining the Rule of Law: Rereading the Grotian “Tradition”’, published in our first issue of the year.

The Articles section opens with a contribution by Raffaela Kunz, who analyses the intricate interplay between human rights courts and domestic courts, portraying the diverse and at times even conflicting roles performed by national courts. Michelle Burgis-Kasthala shifts the focus to the civil war in Syria and evaluates the work of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, which, she argues, may be characterized as ‘entrepreneurial justice’. Francisco de Abreu Duarte concludes this section by critically reflecting on the jurisdictional monopoly of the European Court of Justice. Taking the investment court system as a case study, he not only examines the ‘final say’ of the Court but also the power-grabbing concept of autonomy of the European Union as well as its external implications and impact.

To mark EJIL’s 30th Anniversary our Roaming Charges in this issue presents a kaleidoscope of all Roaming Charge photographs over the last nine years.

EJIL has a long tradition of advancing the field of international law scholarship. In line with this openness to new developments and methodologies, we feature a Symposium on ‘The Psychology of International Law’, convened by Anne van Aaken and Tomer Broude. Following the joint introduction by the conveners, Anne van Aaken pushes the envelope by applying insights from experimental psychology and economics to international legal theory. She shows that both constructivist and rationalist standpoints lack evidence with respect to their respective assumptions. Doron Teichman and Eyal Zamir, in their contribution, take nudging to the next level – the international realm. Despite some serious obstacles and challenges, they display how this behavioural instrument can be utilized with respect to states within international legal contexts. Anton Strezhnev, Beth A. Simmons and Matthew D. Kim investigate – based on empirical research in Australia, India and the United States of America in the context of refugee admission – whether international law has a normative power to change public opinion. They find that the persuasive power of international law is minor but significant even in highly politicized fields and when facing strong, elite opposition. Tomer Broude and Inbar Levy turn to international humanitarian law, scrutinizing cognitive biases in military decision-making and discussing tentative options to redesign military investigations in this context. In his article, centred around the pervasive and persistent phenomenon of racial discrimination, Moshe Hirsch illuminates how international law needs to shape, and is able to shape, the socio-cognitive infrastructure if it aims at tackling this deeply engrained bias. Sergio Puig concludes this Symposium by exploring prevalent biases in international economic law, focusing on tax, trade and investment law. Beyond identifying these cognitive pitfalls, he also analyses their strategic exploitation as well as potential tools and infrastructure features to de-bias decision-making.

Following this Symposium, we feature two EJIL: Debates! Nicolas Lamp provides three possible narratives on how we could or should think about those who benefit and those who lose from globalization. He then reflects on the implications of these narratives for the redesign of international economic agreements. Bernard Hoekman and Douglas Nelson question and challenge Lamp’s analysis and conclusions.

In the second EJIL: Debate! Wendy Ng analyses the norms of international competition law against the backdrop of rising economic powers. She examines if and how China will contest and change this regime, which for the longest time has been dominated by developed Western states. Eleanor Fox, in her Reply, complements this inquiry.

The book review section features assessments of four recent works, and also revives an EJIL tradition. The four recent volumes illustrate, in terms of genre, style and subject, the diversity of international legal scholarship: we cover one multi-author collective work (Gian Luca Burci discussing Human Rights in Global Health) as well as three monographs, namely Emily Sipiorski’s Good Faith in International Investment Arbitration (reviewed by Tania Voon), Justice Framed: A Genealogy of Transitional Justice by Marcos Zunino (Mark Drumbl) and Ratna Kapur’s Gender, Alterity and Human Rights. Freedom in a Fishbowl (Sari Kuovo). The reviews are preceded by a revived form of review essay: Impressions. In this issue Pierre-Marie Dupuy shares his impressions upon re-reading Michel Virally’s L’organisation mondiale. The Impressions series revives an EJIL tradition begun in 2011: it will feature occasional pieces in which academics reflect on works that have shaped their thinking about international law.

The Last Page features Kalypso Nicolaidis’ very timely reflection on ‘What kind of Brit shall I be?’.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed