Two Weeks in Review, 12 – 25 October 2020

Online Teaching

Joseph Weiler offers some thoughts on how to make Zoom teaching more engaging in this editorial, including the use of breakout rooms to encourage students to deliberate with each other.

Tarcisio Gazzini follows up on this with some considerations about “dual teaching” – teaching delivered by a teacher and an assistant – in both online and offline contexts. 

Posts

Felicity G. Attard and Richard L. Kilpatrick, Jr. address the Maersk Etienne case where an oil tanker was diverted by the Maltese rescue co-ordination centre to a vessel in distress off the coast of Tunisia and then was denied entry by a number of states. The authors consider the obligations under the 1979 SAR Convention to ensure a shipmaster, after having rescued persons, is not burdened with unnecessary deviations and delays, and the obligations of different states including the flag state. Lastly, they consider the commercial impact cases like this might have on the shipping industry and the likelihood it disincentivizes compliance with the duty to rescue. 

Anthea Roberts and Taylor St. John consider the impact of virtual meetings on the ISDS reform negotiations. ‘Can you hear me now?’ and ‘Is my microphone working’ is a common refrain that by now we are fairly familiar with. But virtual meetings allow more people to attend. Roberts and St. John note the record numbers of attendees and the inclusivity of this meeting format, while considering the downsides like distractions. 

Helmut Philipp Aust and Prisca Feihle look at the “remarkable institutional development” which has taken place: WHO Foundation has been incorporated under Swiss law. Aust and Feihle outline some issues with the funding of international organisations before considering the relationship between WHO-F and the WHO.

Michael Schmitt contributed a three part post on Foreign Cyber Interference in Elections. In his first post, Schmitt considers some issues important to assessing if there has been cyber interference in elections, including questions of attribution and whether and what type of interference is prohibited in international law.  

In Part II, Schmitt examines the possible breaches of the obligation to respect sovereignty and of international human rights law in connection with election interference by cyber means. And in Part III, he looks at the positive obligations on states to stop cyber interference, including the due diligence obligation, and the responses under International law available to victim states.

Alessandra Arcuri, Federica Violi, Kyla Tienhaara, David Schneiderman, Laurens Ankersmit and Harm Schepel contribute to the debate on EU States ratifying CETA by considering issues surround the right and legitimacy of Member States to sign or not sign CETA, including the implications of the CETA International Court System (ICS). 

Ivar Alvik writes a rejoinder to Jurgen Kurtz on the topic of how international investment law privileges foreign investors. You can read their EJIL! Debate in Vol. 31 (2020) No. 1 online here.

Maximilian Bertamini examines the UN Security Council decision-making process on the renewal of humanitarian assistance for Syria and the “clash of views” about the concept of sovereignty and the principles and purposes contained within the UN Charter that this debate reveals. 

Juan Pappier and Kyle Johnson consider whether FARC can still be thought to exist, after they formally demobilized and handed in weapons three years ago, and what this means for the status of “dissident groups” under international humanitarian law and the appropriate rules of engagement. 

Natasa Mavronicola writes about the “human rights’ coercive and carceral turn”, questioning this relationship and how it might be reversed, by taking actions like defunding the police, such that we might re-imagine a “redistributive human rights future”.

Finally, you can read all the recent Announcements and Events here.