Search results

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the United States Department of State.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the United States Department of State.

The material in this section is arranged according to the system employed in the annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, published by the United States Department of State.

Can international organizations (IOs) gain independence from their member states, even if their decisions arise from member state bodies? While organizational independence is a precondition for the autonomy and agency of IOs, International Relations theory cannot yet grasp IO independence in the absence of institutional agents like secretariats. Drawing on collective actor theories with a strong micro-foundation from philosophy and sociology, this article demonstrates how organizational rules and procedures gradually shape organizational processes and produce collective effects that do not arise from the aggregation of member state activities. Member-dominated IOs can produce collective beliefs about relevant parts of the outside world that differ from the aggregated beliefs of member states. They can comprise institutionalized organizational goals and criteria that indicate collective intentions of organizational action and differ from the aggregate preferences of member states. They can comprise decision-making procedures that foster organizational decisions according to collective beliefs and intentions and reduce or abolish the relevance of bargaining and preference aggregation. Finally, they can act in ways that do not immediately rely on implementation action by the member states or by other lower-level actors. I conclude that analyzing the sources of independence of member-dominated IOs from their members sheds light on the nature and effects of IOs as group actors.

AbstractFour case-based research approaches to analysis of data on international negotiation are discussed: the single, analytical case study, the temporal or time-series case study, the focused comparison of a small number of similar cases, and aggregate comparisons of a large number of different cases. The strategies are compared in terms of a number of methodological and substantive features. They are considered as alternative routes to theory development, understood best in relation to each other and best utilized together as part of a multi-method research strategy. The role of frameworks for guiding comparative analyses is discussed in the second part of the article. They are illustrated in conjunction with several multivariate projects involving the coding of variables from a variety of cases. Methods of analysis and findings obtained from these projects are then summarized. These framework-driven comparative analyses are facilitated by the advent of web-based technologies. The new technologies are especially useful for collecting information about cases of negotiation not described in archival publications. The article concludes with challenges that confront the analyst and some gaps that remain to be filled.

Introduction -- Chapter 2: Three Illustrative Cases – Facts and Questions -- Chapter 3: Overview of the Key Moments in the Development of nato -- Chapter 4: Current Institutional Framework of nato and nato's Decision Making Process -- Chapter 5: The International Legal Personality of nato -- Chapter 8: Binding International Obligations Relevant to nato's Operations -- Chapter 7: Attribution of Wrongful Acts to nato -- Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations.

Five practical questions discussed in the context of the Notarial Private International Law Course at the Course of Traineeships of the Master of Specialisation of the UCLouvain, held on 26 October 2020, all revolving around matrimonial property regimes and successions! ; Cinq questions pratiques discutées dans le cadre du cours de droit international privé notarial lors de la réunion des maîtres de stage du master de spécialisation de l'UCLouvain, organisée le 26 octobre 2020, tournant toutes autour des régimes matrimoniaux et des successions !

Recognition, or the lack of it, is a central concern in International Relations (IR). However, how states cope with international misrecognition has so far not been thoroughly explored in IR scholarship. To address this, the article presents a theoretical framework for understanding international misrecognition by drawing on discursive and psychoanalytical theories of collective identity formation and humour studies. The article conceptualises international misrecognition as a gap between the dominant narrative of a national Self and the way this national Self is reflected in the 'mirror' of the international Other. We argue that humour offers an important way of coping with misrecognition by ridiculing and thereby downplaying international criticism. The significance for international relations is illustrated through an analysis of the public diplomacy campaign, 'Presenting Israel', which, through parodying video clips, mobilised ordinary Israeli citizens to engage in peer-to-peer public diplomacy to explain Israel when traveling abroad. Public diplomacy campaigns are commonly seen by scholars and practitioners as attempts to improve the nation's image and smoothen or normalise international Self/Other relations. However, after analysing the discursive and visual components of the campaign – which parodied how European media portrayed Israel as primitive, violent and exotic – this article observes that in the context of international misrecognition, such coping attempts can actually contribute to further international estrangement. ; Recognition, or the lack of it, is a central concern in International Relations. However, how states cope with international misrecognition has so far not been thoroughly explored in International Relations scholarship. To address this, the article presents a theoretical framework for understanding international misrecognition by drawing on discursive and psychoanalytical theories of collective identity formation and humour studies. The article conceptualises international misrecognition as a gap between the dominant narrative of a national Self and the way in which this national Self is reflected in the 'mirror' of the international Other. We argue that humour offers an important way of coping with misrecognition by ridiculing and thereby downplaying international criticism. The significance for international relations is illustrated through an analysis of the public diplomacy campaign 'Presenting Israel', which, through parodying video clips, mobilised ordinary Israeli citizens to engage in peer-to-peer public diplomacy to explain Israel when travelling abroad. Public diplomacy campaigns are commonly seen by scholars and practitioners as attempts to improve the nation's image and smoothen or normalise international Self–Other relations. However, after analysing the discursive and visual components of the campaign — which parodied how European media portrayed Israel as primitive, violent and exotic — this article observes that in the context of international misrecognition, such coping attempts can actually contribute to further international estrangement.

The fragmentation of international law is not proven, even if the dangers of its realisation are, according to some commentators, certain; but this idea already constitutes a common point, a way of thinking, within academic theory, where it has become a phenomenon in itself. It is thus appropriate to restate the reasons for, and even more so to examine the object of, the concept of a legal order as it applies to international law. The stakes of the debate on the unity or fragmentation of international law are even higher as they involve not only legal, but also political, considerations. However, the core of the problem of unity and fragmentation, which is primarily technical, is well-defined by the International Law Commission's recent study of the topic, even if its assessment is definitively based on the invocation of well-established principles.

This book calls for a reappraisal of liberalism in IR theory. Based on the first comprehensive analysis of the ideas by David Hume, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and a new perspective on Adam Smith and international relations, the analysis shows that classical liberalism differs substantially from other forms of liberalism.

'Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?' It is to answer this question that the General Assembly of the United Nations ('UNGA') requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice ('ICJ'). The request, adopted in October 20081 and initially sponsored by Serbia, was triggered by the declaration of independence of Kosovo issued on the 17 February 2008.2 Some two years later, on the 22 July 2010, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion.3 By a 10–4 vote, the ICJ found that the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.