Suchergebnisse

This post is co-authored with Fabio Wasserfallen and is cross-posted (with a different title) at the LSE European Politics and Policy Blog. **** The creation of the single market is widely believed to have strengthened tax competition among European countries; … Continue reading →

National courts often use international norms in their decisions even when such norms have not been incorporated into their domestic legal systems. Judicial cross-fertilization also occurs as a result of mutual referencing of foreign decisions that have persuasive appeal, and through extensive networking initiatives. It is argued that this phenomenon signals the emergence of a "global community of courts" and the merging of international and domestic legal systems. To evaluate this claim, research needs to engage two types of questions with far reaching implications for politics and law. The first, empirical question is whether transjudicial cooperation is indeed a global trend: is it occurring across legal traditions and cultures? What motivates courts to turn to international and foreign law in reasoning their decisions? How do other actors outside the judiciary perceive this practice? The second, normative question is whether this observed merging of international and national law may take place in the absence of shared values, principles and normative underpinnings. In other words, even if empirically it can be shown that judicial cross-fertilization is global in scope, and that it may blur the distinctions between international and national law, what are the ethical implications of such developments?

Participants: Kerstin Blome (University Bremen), Charlotte Ku (Univerity of Illinios), Philip Liste (University of Hamburg), Andreas von Staden (University St Gallen), Chair: Antje Wiener (University of Hamburg)

The Round Table discussion is taking place at the ISA Annual Convention, Montreal, Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:30 AM
Room: Viger A

The 2011-12 Lecture Series of the Center for Globalization and Governance at the University of Hamburg will focus on Global Constitutionalism: Thinking about Justice, Legitimacy and Democracy in Global Terms

Time and Place:
02.11.2011 – 25.01.2012 WEDNESDAY, 6 – 8 pm
University of Hamburg, Lecture Room K, Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1

Participants: Robert Howse & Ruti G. Teitel, New York University; Richard Bellamy, University College London; Cecelia Lynch, University of California at Irvine; Christoph Möllers, Humboldt Universität Berlin; Neil Walker, University of Edinburgh; Richard Ned Lebow, Darthmouth College

Abstract: The 21st century has brought about a change from merely globalised to constitutionalised international relations. The shift comes with a paradox: While international organisations have undergone processes of constitutionalisation compliance with international law is highly contested. At the same time, most international actors including both states and none-states would be in broad agreement that legitimacy and legality matter in international relations. The paradox has been addressed by lawyers and political scientists from a range of theoretical angles who raised questions about the relationship between different legal orders and the role of international organisations. Specifically, recent studies of global constitutionalism have discussed ways in which the United Nations (UN) can be incorporated into a constitutional order and developed methods to assess the constitutionalisation of international organisations such as the World Trade Union (WTO, the European Union (EU), Mercosur and other. These academic debates are global. They reflect the pressing problem of legitimate governance for politicians and courts as contested UN Security Council decisions inside and outside European and other regional courts demonstrate (compare the debate about the Kadi case and its implications for law and politics). However, despite the wide-ranging interest and the political pressure to fix global problems with the intervening assistance of international institutions, there is little agreement on how to proceed (compare the UN Security Council decision on Libya). The observed change that is brought to the fore by global constitutionalism represents a particular challenge to international relations theory since it involves a distinct constitutional quality in an area not commonly addressed by constitutional theory.

COORDINATION: Professor Antje Wiener, Chair in Political Science and Global Governance, University of Hamburg

Download Program

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) recently published new preliminary figures for aid in 2011.
It showed official development assistance (ODA) aid from wealthy governments had increased to $133.5 billion in 2011 (at constant 2010 prices). This is roughly 0.31% of GNI (Gross National Income) of the donor nations. But this was also a drop of nearly 3% from the previous year. It was to be expected that the effects of the financial crisis would eventually affect aid. In some respects, the decline is not as bad as it could have been given the conditions in many donor countries.

Yet, over 40 years ago nations promised to reach 0.7% of their GNI by the mid-1970s. While each year the amount of aid falls quite short of that 0.7% target (less than half of that target), the quality and effectiveness of that aid is often questionable, sometimes benefiting the donor more than the recipient due to the types of conditions attached to this aid.
This update includes a number of new and updated charts and graphs.
Read full article: Foreign Aid for Development Assistance

It is possible to apply for support for short term mobility (3 days-6 months) within the frame of the COST Action: International Law between Constitutionalisation and Fragmentation: the role of law in the post-national constellation. (to be found at the Action website: http://www.il-cf.eu/ ). The mobility is intended to facilitate research collaboration on topics that fall within the frame of the action, especially for younger researchers. Support can be offered to researchers who wish to move between (from/to) institutions located in the countries that have signed the action. Currently the following countries participate in the Action: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden and the European Institute in Florence. South Africa and Australia are currently applying for partnership.
Applications will be prioritized according to their relevance and closeness to the research agenda of the Action. For further information on the mobility support see the Action website: http://www.il-cf.eu/ . The application form can be found at http://www.cost.eu/stsm
For any queries or to submit complete applications, please contact one of the following two STSM coordinators:

Alexia Herwig, JSD, LLM
Associate Professor
Faculty of Law
University of Antwerp
Venusstraat 23
2000 Antwerp
Belgium
Phone : + 32 3 265 5498
alexia.herwig@ua.ac.be

Anna Leander
Professor
Department of Business and Politics
Copenhagen Business School
Porcelænshaven 18A
2000 Frederiksberg
Denmark
Phone: +45 3815 3119
al.dbp@cbs.dk
Anna Leander
Professor (mso)
Department of Business and Politics
Copenhagen Business School
Porcelænshaven 18A, DK-2000 Frederiksberg
Tel.: (+45) 3815 3119 |al.dbp@cbs.dk |
www.cbs.dk/staff/ale

An overview of the Climate Change Conference (also known as COP 17), held in Durban, South Africa in December 2011.

Predictably and sadly, the same issues have resurfaced: lack of media coverage, West stalling on doing anything trying to blame India and China instead, lack of funding, disagreement on how to address it, etc.

Geopolitical threats (real and imaginary) quickly focus a lot of political will and money is easily found to mobilize military forces when needed.

The economy also takes center stage as the current pressing issue, while climate change is easily deferred, in the hopes that the West can let China and India pick up the burden of addressing emissions even though they have not contributed to the historical build up of emissions that have started the recent changes in the climate.

This page is an overview of the Durban conference.

Read full article: COP17 - Durban Climate Conference

Lessons from the International Criminal Court and the Special Court for Sierra Leone

Conference
3,4 May 2012
Freetown, Sierra Leone

International criminal justice has become a weapon in political struggles in different African states. International court and tribunals, whilst often portrayed as legal bastions immune from politics, have proven to be inherently political. Depending on the definition of what counts as 'political', the politics of international criminal justice can be found at different levels. For instance, international criminal courts are created by political decisions, adjudicate crimes which are frequently related to politics, and depend on a mysterious and seemingly magical 'political will' for the enforcement of their decisions. Moreover, recent studies have shown how the International Criminal Court has become implicated in political struggles by making a distinction between the friends and enemies of the international community which it purports to represent.

This conference studies the politics of international criminal justice at these different stages. Some of the main questions include:
• How should the politics of international criminal justice be conceptualized? What theoretical approaches are helpful in articulating the political aspects of criminal courts and tribunals?
• What lessons can be learned from experiences in countries affected by interventions of international criminal courts? What is the political role of international criminal courts in countries such as Sierra Leone, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Central African Republic or Kenya?
• How can we improve the accountability of those engaged in the politics of international criminal justice?

The conference brings together academics from different disciplines, including international law and political science, and practitioners in the field of law and politics (including diplomats, politicians, judges, legal counsels). While its main focus is on the International Criminal Court and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, contributions from other areas of international criminal justice are welcomed as well.

Submissions and selection
If you would like to participate in the conference, please send us a 500-750 words abstract of the paper you plan to present before February 1st 2012. We will select a maximum of 10 papers that can be presented at the conference. Early submissions are welcomed. If you are invited to present, we would like to receive a short position paper two weeks before the conference. The position paper should be max. 2500 words, outlining the main argument.

Please send your paper proposal to:
Prof. dr. W.G. Werner
w.werner@rechten.vu.nl

Conference fee
The fee for the conference is 100 Euro. The money from the fees will be used to provide financial support for scholars or practitioners from (West-)African countries coming to the conference. If you would like to receive such support, please let us know before February 15th 2012.
Attendees from African countries are entitled to a waiver of the fee.

I've received many requests for some kind of journal rankings list from readers of my essay on publishing advice.

Readers will be aware of several different rankings of philosophy journals. These include the Australian Research Council's (ARC) now disused ERA rankings and European Science Foundation's (ESF) European Research Index for the Humanities (ERIH).

Plus, there have been different polls by Brian Leiter and the Brooks Blog (and this more comprehensive poll of 140+ journals). Other blogs discussing journal rankings include Certain Doubts, Lemmings, Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants, and this.

Each metric has its limitations and such a discussion would merit a long blogpost of its own. Let me be clear from the beginning that I believe that journal rankings are the crudest of indicators. If you want to assess the quality of something, then read it.

What I propose here is a ranking of rankings. Journals will be grouped in tiers based upon various metrics. There is broad agreement between different lists and I don't believe this list will prove controversial.

The official Brooks Blog Journal Rankings for Philosophy *

[The full rankings can be found here  http://tinyurl.com/philosophyrankings]!]


* Note on rankings:

I have weighted the journals in the following way:

ARC ERA list:
Journals are ranked A*, A, B, C. Points awarded: A* = 5, A = 4, B = 3, C = 2.

Brooks Blog list (1):
Journals ranked 1-50. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3, #31-40 = 2, #41-50 = 1.

List (2) ranks journals 1-50. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3, #31-40 = 2, #41-50 = 1, #51-143 = 0.

ERIH list:
Journals are (now) ranked Int1, Int2, Nat. Points awarded: Int1 = 5, Int2 = 4, Nat = 3.

Leiter Reports list:
General philosophy journals ranked only in top 20. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4. Leiter has an additional list in ethics which raises complications. Journals are not double-counted and keep score if on general list. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3 where journals not on list 1. While this will cover general journals and journals that publish in ethics, there is need for a list in other areas especially mind/language and philosophy of science.

Notes: There are two lists for the Brooks Blog. List 2 is original list and surveys top 143 journals from a broad range. The top 50 in this poll were polled a second time in List 1.

QUERY FOR READERS: Do the weightings seem appropriate? What would you change? What journal rankings would you add?

Dear
Friends and Colleagues,



For a
few years now, many of you will have heard us mention the need for a new
section at the ISA, one in which there would be a room for historical pieces
which engage with international issues in a broad sense. We hereby ask for your
support for a new section at the ISA entitled Historical International
Relations by signing the online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/hir/, and forwarding this email to
colleagues you think will have an interest in supporting the section.



As you
may all have noticed, there seems to be an increasing interest in historical
scholarship in the discipline, an interest which is largely reflected in papers
and panels presented at the conferences. However, these historical engagements
appear in general in a host of different guises, sponsored (sometimes
halfheartedly) by different existing sections. Some are sponsored by
International Security, others by Diplomatic Studies, while more still have
found shelter in the English School Section. While some may not see this as a
problem, as it forces historical scholarship to engage with other sections of
the discipline, we nevertheless think this situation requires a new section at
the ISA.



The idea
of a new section is not for historical scholarship to colonize the ISA. We do
not see such a section becoming one of the leading sections of the ISA. Rather,
we see it as carving out a modest space for scholars who engage historically to
work together, meet, and engage with each other's work without having to
pretend to be talking about something else. This common space would allow for
conversations across sub-disciplinary boundaries, conversations which are
difficult to carry out within many of the other sections of the ISA, and it
should thus also increase the overall cohesiveness of the discipline. Rather
than fragmenting the discipline, we think a Historical International Relations
Section will contribute to increased intra-disciplinary dialogue.



It is
important for us to emphasize too that this is not meant to be a section for
international history. What we think we have identified, is that to the extent
that IR scholars engage historically, they do so as "merry amateurs" rather
than professional historians. It is this spirit of collegial openness and
inclusion as well as intellectual curiosity which we would like to foster by
creating a new section.



In
short, we see the founding of a new Historical International Relations section
as a way to create a space for this type of scholarship, but also legitimize
efforts to address IR historically, as it would make these topics interesting
in their own right, and not because of their potential relevance for the other
sections.



Thank
you for supporting the new section and for forwarding the email.



We look
forward to seeing you at the inaugural section meeting in the near future.



Best
wishes,



Benjamin
de Carvalho, NUPI

Daniel
Green, University of Delaware

Halvard
Leira, NUPI

Daniel
Nexon, Georgetown University
Andrea Paras, University of Guelph