Treaty Withdrawals in a Turbulent World: A Retrospective on Exiting Treaties
In: in LEADING WORKS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Donna Lyons, ed. 2023)
In: in LEADING WORKS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Donna Lyons, ed. 2023)
SSRN
In: International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Lawfare (Siri Gloppen & Malcolm Langford eds., 2023)
SSRN
In: Oxford Handbook of Comparative Human Rights Law (Neha Jain & Mila Versteeg eds. 2024) (Forthcoming)
SSRN
In: 117 American Journal of International Law 559 (Oct. 2023)
SSRN
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 117, Heft 4, S. 559-600
ISSN: 2161-7953
AbstractAsset recovery is a fundamental principle of anti-corruption law, without which the financial damage from corruption cannot be repaired. Yet recovering assets is notoriously difficult and time-consuming, and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption provides little technical or institutional support to facilitate such returns. To remedy this, we propose the creation of a transnational asset recovery mechanism that could provide myriad services to states upon request, including gathering and publishing information, providing technical assistance and capacity building, helping to conclude agreements on asset return, and monitoring returned funds. Theoretically, we introduce the concepts of customizability and selectability to explain why a flexible transnational asset recovery mechanism has advantages over more formal international institutions, such as an international anti-corruption court. These benefits include lower financial and political costs, enhanced adaptability, and a greater likelihood of enhancing interstate cooperation regarding asset returns.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 116, Heft 1, S. 206-210
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: 85 L. & Contemp. Probs. 59-93 (2021)
SSRN
In: Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2022-47
SSRN
In: Southern California Law Review, Band 95
SSRN
In: Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas: Brazilian journal of public policy, Band 11, Heft 2
ISSN: 2236-1677
Numerosos governos responderam à pandemia de COVID-19 declarando estados de emergência e restringindo as liberdades individuais protegidas pelo direito internacional. Entretanto, muito mais Estados adotaram medidas de emergência do que derrogaram formalmente as convenções de direitos humanos. O presente artigo avalia de forma crítica o sistema existente de derrogações aos tratados de direitos humanos. Ele analisa os problemas do sistema, identifica desenvolvimentos recentes que exacerbaram esses problemas e propõe uma série de reformas em cinco áreas - incorporação, engajamento, informação, prazos e escopo.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 115, Heft 1, S. 20-40
ISSN: 2161-7953
AbstractNumerous governments have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by declaring states of emergency and restricting individual liberties protected by international law. However, many more states have adopted emergency measures than have formally derogated from human rights conventions. This Editorial Comment critically evaluates the existing system of human rights treaty derogations. It analyzes the system's problems, identifies recent developments that have exacerbated these problems, and proposes a range of reforms in five areas—embeddedness, engagement, information, timing, and scope.
In: European journal of international law, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 907-914
ISSN: 1464-3596
Abstract
Over the last decade, scholars have debated whether the shifting landscape of individual rights protection in Europe has influenced the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In our article, 'Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?', we analysed every minority opinion of the ECtHR Grand Chamber between 1998 and 2018. We found a substantial increase in what we labelled as 'walking back dissents' – minority opinions asserting that the Grand Chamber has overturned prior case law or settled doctrine in a way that favours the government. In their Reply, Stone Sweet, Sandholtz and Andenas (SSA) offer two principal critiques. First, they assert that they could not 'replicate' our coding. Second, SSA challenge our claim that legal and political developments in Europe have incentivized the ECtHR to move in a rights-restrictive direction. These claims are inaccurate and mischaracterize our article. First, SSA do not 'replicate' our study. Instead, they code a very small subset of judgments using more restrictive, subjective and vague criteria – which, unsurprisingly, yield fewer walking back dissents. Second, SSA narrowly focus on the Brighton and Copenhagen conferences, ignoring numerous other changes at the national and regional level that have created a more constrained environment for the ECtHR.
In: Human Rights in a Time of Populism: Challenges and Responses 218-249 (Gerald L. Neuman, ed. 2020 Forthcoming)
SSRN
Working paper
In: 115(1) American Journal of International Law 20-40 (2021)
SSRN
Working paper
In: Intellectual Property and Human Rights, Fourth Edition (Paul L.C. Torremans, ed., Forthcoming 2020)
SSRN