Suchergebnisse

This panel was convened at 1:45 p.m., Friday, March 26, 2021, by the ASIL-Midwest Interest Group. Through a roundtable discussion, the panel explored the changes that the pandemic has had on the practice and teaching of international law. Professor Brian Farrell and Professor Stuart Ford, Co-Chairs of the Midwest Interest Group, co-moderated the panel discussion and introduced the panelists: Juliet Sorensen of the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law; Lawrence Schaner of Schaner Dispute Resolution LLC; Kanglin Yu of the University of Iowa College of Law; Dr. Robert Eno, Registrar of the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights; and Vera Korzun of the University of Akron School of Law.

Abstract
In international legal thought and practice, anything that is related to the real or is grounded in the real is given discursive primacy. This discursive primacy is the manifestation of a common scientistic hierarchy of discourses inherited from Modernity that accords primacy to discourses about the real and grounded in the real. Anne Orford's International Law and the Politics of History can be read as yet another expression of discontent with such primacy of the real and its scientistic methods. With an emphasis on international lawyers' engagements with history, Orford specifically takes issue with the use of contextualist and empirical methods in the study of the history of international law. And, yet, as is argued in this review essay, scienticism leaves no way out for those seeking to contest it: Orford's charge against contextualism and empiricism itself needs to be contextualized and empirically supported.

"The updated edition of this acclaimed book offers a critical overview of the law of foreign investment, incorporating a thorough analysis of the principles and standards of treatment available to foreign investors in international law. It is authoritative and multi-layered, offering an analysis of the key issues and an insightful assessment of recent trends in the case law, from both developed and developing country perspectives. A major feature of the book is that it deals with the tension between the law of foreign investment and other competing principles of international law. In doing so, it proposes ways of achieving a balance between these principles and the need to protect the legitimate rights and expectations of foreign investors on the one hand, and the need not to restrict unduly the right of host governments to implement their public policy on the other, including the protection of the environment and human rights, and the promotion of social and economic justice within the host country. Many of the pioneering ideas that were advanced in the first edition of this book in 2008 have been taken up by governments and international organisations in their attempts to reform the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism and strike a balance between different competing principles in developing international investment law. Accordingly, this fourth edition captures the essence of the ongoing multiple reform processes -either planned or envisaged - currently underway"--

How can private international law contribute to the development of the legal architecture needed to integrate our emerging multi-cultural society? Key FeaturesOpens a cross-regional dialogue, shifting the Eurocentric discussion on diversity and integration to a more inclusive engagement with the Global South in private international law issuesPromotes a cosmopolitan vision of private international law, as a discipline with the potential to transcend its boundaries to further promote the reality of cross-border integrationProvides timely insights on the significance of the Brexit vote for rethinking the challenges that legal diversity poses for an integration projectBringing together world-renowned academics and experienced private international lawyers from a wide range of jurisdictions in Europe and South America, this book explores how the methodologies and techniques of private international law can be used to engage with legal diversity. The contributors explore ways forward and set out a vision of private international law connected to the communication, coordination, cooperation and engagement between legal orders. It provides in-depth analysis of the role of private international law in dealing with legal diversity across a diverse range of topics.Topics covered includeInternational cooperation in civil and commercial mattersLabour migration and other migration issues more generallyCross-border family issuesConsumer protectionPrivate international law of successionInternational contractsArbitration and private international lawList of ContributorsMercedes Albornoz, Professor of Private International Law, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) (México) Beatriz Añoveros Terradas, Associate Professor of Private international law, ESADE Law School Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona (Spain)Nadia de Araujo, Professor of Private International Law , Pontificia Universidade Católica de Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)Guillermo Argerich, Professor of Private International Law, University of Buenos Aires (Argentina)Laura Capalbo, Associate Professor of Private International Law, Universidad de la República (Uruguay) Laura Carballo, Professor, Nippon Foundation Chair, World Maritime University, Malmo (Sweden)Janeen M. Carruthers, Professor of Private Law, University of Glasgow (Scotland)Giuditta Cordero Moss, Professor of Private International Law, University of Oslo (Norway)Rosario Espinosa Calabuig, Professor of Private International Law, Universitat de Valencia (Spain)Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Professor of Law, SciencesPo, Paris (France)Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre, Professor of Private International Law, Universidad de la República (Uruguay)Ignacio Goicoechea, Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (Argentina)Kasey McCall-Smith, Lecturer in Public International Law, University of Edinburgh (Scotland)David McClean, Emeritus Professor of Private International Law, University of Sheffield (England)Ralf Michaels, Arthur Larson Professor of Law, Duke University (United States)Maria Blanca Noodt Taquela, Professor of Private International Law, Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina)Didier Opertti Badán, Emeritus Professor of Private International Law. Universidad de la República (Uruguay)Sebastián Paredes, Assistant Professor of Private International Law, Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina)

The midwives of international law, Gentili, Grotius, Vitoria, Suarez, Pufendorf, and Wolff, found the principles of this law in the law of nature. This, in turn, was derived by some of them from the law of God and by others from the law of reason. But, as the law of nations grew and its content developed, its derivation was established, particularly with Vattel in the middle of the eighteenth century, from the will of states rather than from the law of nature. Today's international lawyer simply inherits the principle of identification whereby international-law rules of general application are created by international custom. (This custom is produced by that kind of practice of states relating to a matter of international relations which is concordant and general and is accompanied by the conviction of states that it is obligatory under international law.) The application of this principle of identification, however, is not so simple because of the appearance of three new situations.

AbstractPrivatization of functions that were traditionally considered sovereign has reached new heights. International lawyers have responded mostly by seeking to limit some of the consequences of that phenomenon, by, for example, ensuring accountability of states for outsourcing. International law has sometimes appeared agnostic, however, about the very legality of privatization. This Article explores a more radical take, namely the possibility that certain state functions could be seen as "inherently sovereign" under international law. International law can be understood this way, the Article argues, despite its general deferral to sovereignty (including the sovereignty to outsource), the fact that historically all kinds of functions that we have come to associate with the state have been exercised privately, and international law's own role in legitimizing privatization in our era.