Two Weeks in Review, 21 August – 13 September 2020

Gleider Hernández and Evelyne Schmid issued an invitation to make use of the new ESIL Teaching Corner, calling for professional solidarity in teaching international law.

During such times of disruption and crisis, we feel strongly that the potential of the Teaching Corner to support international law teaching is important. The global pandemic has drawn attention to structural issues in higher education such as the differential and unequal impact of the pandemic and issues with precarious employment (see here, here and here). We hope in particular that the Teaching Corner can, in a small way, help to support early career academics, by giving access to prior experience in how to structure and design modules, especially during this turbulent period.

Olga Martin-Ortega and Claire Methven O’Brien consider the options for the EU to legislate to monitor and enforce mandatory human rights due diligence obligations for EU companies, as well as potential remedies.

Isabella Risini and Geir Ulfstein discuss the inter-State application Liechtenstein lodged against the Czech Republic. They consider the historical context for the application, compare it to other inter-state applications and discuss some of the procedural issues of the new case.

Tatjana Papic brought together ‘Hezbollah, Huawei, Homosexuality, Sharon Stone and a Chainsaw’ in discussing the interesting Economic Normalization Agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, brokered by the Trump administration and signed at the White House. Papic shows the now legendary moment where it appears the Serbian President Vučić looks surprised that Serbia agreed to move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Here the moment President Vucic 🇷🇸 was informed that he was going to move his Israel 🇮🇱 embassy to Jerusalem. pic.twitter.com/8195dGDZQT

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) September 5, 2020

Orla Kelleher comments on the important decision by the Supreme Court of Ireland to quash the government’s National Mitigation Plan. Kelleher discusses the judicial guidance on the government’s climate obligations, the Court’s refusal to give standing to corporate bodies to raise personal constitutional and ECHR rights and issues surrounding the ‘greening’ of existing human rights. 

Kristina Daugirdas intervenes in an important debate on whether international organisations create customary international law and responds to Jan Klabbers’ negative assessment of the impact of customary lawmaking by international organizations. Daugirdas argues that ‘bringing international organizations into the fold—affirming that they are both bound by and creators of customary international law—constitutes an improvement over the status quo, both for individuals who are affected by their conduct and for some aspects of the legitimacy of the international legal system.’

All recent Announcements and Event notices can be found here and information on how to contribute yours can be found here.