Author Archives: Otto Spijkers

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

Posted on by

Since a few days, the Netherlands has a brand new College voor de Rechten van de Mens (National Institute for Human Rights). Why did we establish it? The Netherlands believes itself to be a country heavily committed to human rights, both nationally and internationally. When it “campaigned” for a seat in the UN Human Rights Council after the Council’s establishment in 2006, the Netherlands already pledged to establish a national human rights institute. It took some time, but now we have kept our word.

But keeping our promise is not the reason why the Institute was established, of course. The core mission of the Institute is to promote compliance with human rights within the territory of the Netherlands. The Institute will do so through a combination of advice, research and information. It will often remind the government of its responsibilities, because it is the government which is primarily responsible for the realization of human rights for all in the Netherlands. The Institute does not deal with individual human rights complaints. However, it does act as watchdog of the Dutch equal treatment legislation; in individual cases brought before it, it will decide whether someone has been discriminated against at work, at school as a consumer. It thus effectively takes over this task from the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission.

On 2 October 2012, Navanethem Pillay, herself the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, gave a speech on the occasion of the opening of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. According to Pillay, the new Institute should become “active in protecting marginalized individuals and groups by ensuring that principles of nondiscrimination and equality are incorporated into legislation, policies and practice.” Pillay also reminded everyone of the most persistent human rights problems in the Netherlands:

“Policies and programmes to combat all of forms of discrimination, racism and xenophobia, including those based on religion; efforts to advance the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers in the country, including in the area of justice and detention; and measures to eliminate violence against women and domestic violence.”

She was referring here to the debate between freedom of expression and respect for religious practices; the treatment of aliens in alien detention centres (much criticized by Amnesty International).

Screening of “Ai Wei Wei: Never Sorry” plus debate afterwards

Posted on by

Movies that Matter on Tour

On Sunday 21 October 2012, at Filmhuis The Hague, starting at 14.00 hrs, the documentary Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry will be shown, followed by a debate.

A personal portrait of Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei, who gained international acclaim for his ambitious postmodern works of art and his political provocations. Never Sorry follows three tumultuous years of his life. The film highlights the unique mix of art and activism with which the artist continuously argues in favour of freedom of expression, independent media and more transparency, thereby putting his life in jeopardy.

To make reservations, dial: +31703656030.

After the film, we have organized a debate between the public and Petra Quaedvlieg, correspondent in Shanghai for De Pers, and Anne Sytske Keijser, who teaches Chinese literature, film and language at the University of Leiden.

 

Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights: The Receptor Approach

Posted on by
Reply

By Byung Sook Pattinaja-de Vries and Otto Spijkers 

In today’s debate it is often suggested that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between two opposing approaches to the domestic implementation of international human rights:

 

  1. Those adhering to the more realistic approach to human rights, those who believe that human rights should be promoted and respected from bottom up
  2. Those adhering to the more legalistic or idealistic approach, those who believe that human rights should be imposed and enforced from top down.

 

The two approaches are less far apart from each other than might appear. International law always tries simultaneously to give a description of the ideal situation (a kind of human rights utopia), and to propose feasible and step-by-step methods to bring reality closer to the ideal. The law must therefore be simultaneously idealistic and realistic.

The receptor approach is currently very popular among politicians because of its realistic character. It emphasizes the finding of a stepwise implementation method for human rights, and is thus only half of the solution: what is missing is the promotion of the ideal of universal validity human rights.

When it comes to the ideal of human rights, there are many questions to which everyone will give the same answer, without knowing exactly what both question and answer are referring to exactly. One such question is: Are human rights universal? The answer is: Yes. But what does the question entail ? And what does the answer mean?

Human rights have universal validity. They serve a higher purpose, i.e. the protection of human dignity. It began with the promulgation of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights by the United Nations. This declaration proclaimed that everyone is born free and is – and remains – equal in dignity and rights. To ensure the universal acceptance of the value of human dignity and the human rights derived there from, the United Nations has deliberately omitted a detailed definition of this value of human dignity. The UN has preferred to use a more intuitive approach
to the value of human dignity. Individuals have rights simply by virtue of being human.

The same intuitive approach is used to derive human rights from the value of human dignity. Because we are all human beings, human rights apply to everyone, without distinction of any kind, such as race, gender, political or other opinion, or any other circumstance. This ideal is also underlined by the many international human rights treaties.

The reality, however, often gives a different picture and the question is how the reality can be brought closer to
the ideal.

About the ideal itself there exist relatively few differences of opinion, especially since the ideal is always described in fairly abstract terms. Once the ideals have to be put in practice, it often becomes evident that human rights issues almost always deal with difficult and often insoluble moral dilemmas. In the Netherlands we
had the debate on freedom of expression versus religious freedom, for example.

Disagreements over the proper way to implement international human rights in domestic practice take place both within and between States. Similar human rights dilemmas can be resolved differently by different States. As long as the universality of human rights is taken into account, it is not problematic that differences exist between  States when it comes to the implementation of human rights.

In Europe there is the margin of appreciation doctrine, which gives the European States certain flexibility in the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that States have some room for interpretation on the basis of their own particular circumstances and situation. Political, economic, social and cultural elements play a role. The influence of different cultures does not necessarily affect the validity of universal human rights. On the contrary, cultural diversity can enrich the human rights discourse.

That is why the receptor approach, which takes the practice as starting point and seeks to link international human rights with local traditions, is not immediately in violation of the universal approach, which begins with the proclamation of the ideal.

This idea of looking for local connections is not new. NGOs, working with local partners to improve human rights from below, have always recognized the importance of the local context.

Despite certain positive aspects the receptor approach may have, there is good reason for caution when taking this approach in human rights policy. There is the threat of a deadlock which is difficult to break. Attachment of human rights policies to local cultures must be done in a critical manner. This can lead to the conclusion that some local practices do not – and will never – meet international human rights standards and should thus be abolished. Such harsh objections
from the international (or mostly Western) community targeting cultural or social aspects of a more traditional society may have as a consequence that the State concerned will view such criticism as a form of moral imperialism. On the other hand, failure to utter this criticism affects the universality of human rights in a negative way. Criticism cannot always be avoided, even though dialogue between States is preferred. States should not lecture other States with a "wagging finger," but instead use that finger to point out that international human rights treaties with various obligations have
been ratified by almost all States.

A certain degree of confrontation also appears necessary to complement the receptor approach. What are the implications when local culture provides no possibilities to link human rights, i.e., when there are no receptors? The local context may never be used as an excuse  to not fulfill the universal human rights
standards.

Human rights are based on human dignity. On that basis, everyone always has human rights. While the receptor approach adheres to the universal validity of human rights, and only complements the existing legal system that serves to promote human rights with alternative locally-based methods, the approach is not problematic. The approach becomes problematic when the practice and the local receptors for human rights are not compatible with universal human rights. It is therefore critical to consider the pitfalls of the approach. Furthermore, the innovative character of the “receptor approach” should not be
over exaggerated. It does not revolutionize the way in which human rights are implemented in the domestic context.

Esther Kiobel, the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, and the right to freely dispose of natural wealth and resources

Posted on by
Reply

The case between Esther Kiobel and the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was set for re-argument in the United States Supreme Court on Monday, October 1, 2012. If I understood it correctly, one of the two questions posed to the Court is the following:

Are foreign corporations immune from tort liability in the US courts for violations of international law committed abroad?

The US has little to do with the case, and thus it could be argued that the case should really be decided in Nigeria, where the alleged violations took place. In any case, the case will likely be about jurisdictional issues, especially universal jurisdiction. Plenty of bloggers will comment on this aspect of the case.

But what if the case actually reaches the merits? What type of disputes could then make their way to the US courts? The Oil Company’s liability will be based on particular acts, not the general scheme of things. Nonetheless, it might be interesting – even though the case will probably not deal with this explicitly – to look at fundamental underlying issues.

The case has a lot to do with the people’s right to exploit their natural resources for their own benefit. The question is whether it is up to a State – read: government – to decide what is to the benefit of the people, or whether the people, including minority peoples, have a right to be involved in such decision-making. The question is relevant because the government of Nigeria does appear to benefit from its contract with the Oil Company, but minority peoples clearly do not.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has often emphasized the right of peoples to exploit their own resources according to their own policies. In the beginning, these debates took place in the context of decolonization. In the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, for example, the Assembly

affirm[ed] that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.[1]

This right was formulated in a general sense, but the fact that it was included in the Decolonization Declaration made it especially – and perhaps even exclusively – applicable to colonial peoples. In 1967, the Assembly ‘reaffirm[ed] the inalienable right of the peoples of the colonial territories to self-determination and independence and to the natural resources of their territories, as well as their right to dispose of these resources in their best interests.’[2] It further ‘deplore[d] the policies of the colonial Powers which permit[ted] the exploitation of the natural resources of the Territories under their administration contrary to the interests of the indigenous population.’[3] It thus called upon all ‘colonial Powers’ to prohibit in particular the following practices:

The exploitation of human and natural resources contrary to the interests of the indigenous inhabitants;

The obstruction of the access of the indigenous inhabitants to their natural resources;

The promotion and tolerance of injustice and discrimination in the remuneration of labor and in the establishment of working conditions.[4]

It further ‘request[ed] the colonial Powers to stop immediately the practice of alienation of lands from the indigenous inhabitants and to take immediate action to return to them all such alienated lands.’[5] In 1980, all States were encouraged to ‘ensure that the permanent sovereignty of the countries and Territories under colonial, racist and alien domination over their natural resources shall be fully respected and safeguarded.’[6] In 1981, the Assembly stressed that ‘by their depletive exploitation of natural resources, the continued accumulation and repatriation of huge profits and the use of those profits for the enrichment of foreign settlers and the entrenchment of colonial domination over the Territories, the activities of foreign economic, financial and other interests operating at present in the colonial Territories […] constitute[d] a major obstacle to political independence and to the enjoyment of the natural resources of those Territories by the indigenous inhabitants.’[7] A few years later, the Assembly became ‘increasingly aware of the importance of economic, social and cultural development and self-reliance of colonial countries and peoples for the attainment and consolidation of genuine independence.’[8]

As time passed, the Assembly, instead of simply condemning exploitation of natural resources by foreign subjects, also began to stress the usefulness of international assistance and cooperation. For example, in 1996, the Assembly ‘affirm[ed] the value of foreign economic investment undertaken in collaboration with the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes in order to make a valid contribution to the socio-economic development of the Territories.’[9] The difference between exploitation and the latter type of economic foreign investment is obvious. Clearly, exploitation was prohibited, but voluntary and mutually beneficial investment was welcomed.

The Assembly refers frequently to the indigenous population. But the question remains whether we are talking about a right belonging to peoples, or a right belonging to newly independent States. In the Human Rights Covenants, there is a relevant provision which proclaims that:

All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.[10]

If the right mentioned above is truly a peoples’ right, then it ‘presumably limits the power of the national government freely to dispose of the natural resources […] without the consent (or against the wishes or contrary to the interests) of the “people”.’[11] If a government does not exploit the resources for the benefit of its own people, what should be done? Should the government be removed from power and be replaced by a government that does distribute the resources evenly over the population? If we pursue this reasoning to its very end, then, as Dam-de Jong pointed out, ‘the State, represented by its government, may only exercise the right to permanent sovereignty on behalf of its population [and must] be regarded as a trustee and not as holder of the right.’[12] And, presumably, trustees can be fired if they fail to do a good job. But instead of targeting the governments, in cases such as the Kiobel case, the multinational corporations are targeted.

In any case, it is not so clear whether the provision in the human rights covenant really intended to grant a right to peoples as opposed to States. Only a few years after the drafting of the human rights covenant provision was finished, in 1962, the Assembly adopted its resolution on permanent sovereignty over natural resources.[13] In that resolution, the Assembly proclaimed that

the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.[14]

The resolution stated this as a general principle, and did not explain what the consequences would be in case a local Government exploited the State’s natural resources for the benefit of a small group of individuals, as opposed to all the State’s inhabitants. In fact, the resolution’s prime aim was to emphasize the right of States over their own natural resources, and not to pose conditions on such
exclusive ownership.

[1] Preamble, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

[2] Para. 2 of the resolution with perhaps the longest name in the Assembly’s history: Activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Southern Rhodesia, South West Africa and Territories under Portuguese domination and efforts to eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa, General Assembly resolution 2288 (XXII), adopted 7 December 1967.

[3] Idem, para. 5.

[4] Idem, para. 7.

[5] Idem, para. 10.

[6] Para. 7, Plan of Action for the Full Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, General Assembly resolution 35/118, adopted 11 December 1980.

[7] Para. 1, Activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Namibia and in all other territories under colonial domination and efforts to eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa, General Assembly resolution 36/51, adopted 24 November 1981.

[8] Preamble, Twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

[9] Para. 2, Activities of foreign economic and other interests which impede the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Territories under colonial domination, General Assembly resolution 51/140, adopted 13 December 1996. Most of the resolution dealt with foreign exploitation.

[10] Article 1(2), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[11] Crawford, ‘The rights of peoples,’ p. 64.

[12] P. 34, Dam-de Jong, ‘International Law and Resource Plunder.’

[13] Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, GA resolution 1803(XVII), adopted 14 December 1962.

[14] Para. 1, Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources.

Index of Economic Freedom Comparison Tool from FindTheData.com

Posted on by
Reply

Guest post by Jonny Kintzele 

 

For over a decade, The Heritage Foundation, one of Washington D..C’s most prestigious think tanks, partnered with the Wall Street Journal to track the march of economic freedom around the globe with the influential Index of Economic Freedom.

 

Using FindTheData’s comparison platform, the information has been presented in a user-friendly, easily navigable comparison resource of every country’s score received by the Index of Economic Freedom.

 

The overall score is a combination of a number of Freedom scores, including anything from Business Freedom and Investment Freedom, to Labor Freedom and Freedom from Corruption. Each of these scores are a product of pure quantitative data such as level of taxation, and lesser index ratings such as the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). FindTheData presents an explanation of each one in their Guide tab attached to the comparison.

 

The tool allows direct, side-by-side comparisons of up to 10 countries. Each index score is worth exploring and toying with. Hong Kong and Singapore top the list for Overall Freedom Score, the United States is hampered by their amount of government spending, and a low Fiscal Freedom Score hurts the Netherlands. I recommend investigating other interesting data points displayed on the Index.

 

Here’s a link to it, take a look for yourself: Index of Economic Freedom.

 

–

Jonny Kintzele is a student intern for FindTheBest, the parent site of FindTheData.

Draught and extreme poverty in (Sub-Saharan) Africa

Posted on by
Reply

By Otto Spijkers

Some States are in such desperate condition that it constitutes an immediate emergency. The United Nations has tried in various ways to encoureage the international community to assist these States. Such calls are important, now that many developed States are thinking of limiting their official development assistance to the absolute minimum.

               One of the earlier declarations specifically devoted to the development of a specific region or group of countries, adopted by the General Assembly itself, was the Declaration on the Critical Economic Situation in Africa, of 1984. [1] In that Declaration, the Assembly expressed its ‘deep concern at the profound economic and social crisis that Africa is experiencing,’ and noted that ‘the situation ha[d] assumed alarming proportions, seriously jeopardizing not only the development process but, more ominously, the very survival of millions of people.’[2] This Declaration did emphasize the ‘primary responsibility [of the African countries themselves] for their development and for addressing the present crisis.’[3] At the same time, the Assembly acknowledged that ‘the international economic environment continue[d] to affect developing countries adversely and, particularly, it had a devastating impact on the already fragile African economies.’[4] The remainder of the declaration primarily dealt with the urgent need for international (financial) assistance to Africa, both in the form of ‘emergency relief aid on a massive scale,’ i.e. aid to meet the immediate needs of Africa and essentially save lives, and more structural assistance such as official development assistance.[5]

                In 1986, the General Assembly organized a special session on Africa. There, the United Nations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development was adopted.[6] In that Programme, the Assembly first attempted to find an explanation for Africa’s ‘pervasive and structural economic problems.’[7] This is interesting, because the Assembly had not made such a serious and comprehensive attempt at defining the problem before. The Assembly referred to Africa’s ‘colonial past,’ without going into detail, but also to the ‘post-independence era.’[8] It praised African initiatives at reform, aimed at ‘breaking the vicious cycle of poverty and underdevelopment’ in which Africa was trapped.[9] As reasons why Africa found itself trapped in this way, the Assembly listed a number of ‘exogenous,’ i.e. external, and ‘endogenous,’ i.e. internal, factors. The latter included deficiencies in institutional and physical infrastructures; economic strategies and policies that had fallen short, in some cases, of achieving their objectives; disparities in urban and rural development and income distribution; inadequate human resource development; and political instability manifested, inter alia, in a large and growing population of refugees.[10] The exogenous factors included the international economic recession; the decline in commodity prices; adverse terms of trade; the decline in financial flows; increased protectionism and high interest rates; and the heavy burden of debt and debt servicing obligations. [11]

                The Programme included many obligations for the African nations themselves, and reaffirmed the African nations’ ‘primary responsibility for the development of their continent.’ [12] The obligations of the international community as a whole were essentially those of assistance, especially financial assistance. [13] In that sense, the critical need for assistance had not dramatically changed the allocation of responsibilities.

                In 1991, the results of the Programme of Action were assessed.[14] The Assembly noted that the Programme ‘did not quite become a focal point for economic policy or for resource mobilization on behalf of Africa.’[15] It thus suggested a new strategy for the future, the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990’s.[16] In this New Agenda, the Assembly once more emphasized that ‘Africa’s development [was] primarily the responsibility of Africans,’ and that ‘the international community accept[ed] the principle of shared responsibility and full partnership with Africa and therefore commit[ted]  itself to giving full and tangible support to the African efforts.’[17] Pursuant to this approach, the New Agenda thus contained a section on Africa’s own responsibilities and commitments, and a section on the responsibilities and commitments – primarily obligations to assist Africa – of the international community as a whole.[18] The New Agenda does not appear to be so drastically different from the Programme of Action adopted earlier.

                The Millennium Declaration also urged States to pay special attention to Africa.[19] Through that Declaration, States resolved, inter alia, ‘to take special measures to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development in Africa, including debt cancellation, improved market access, enhanced Official Development Assistance and increased flows of Foreign Direct Investment, as well as transfers of technology.’[20] The Declaration also referred to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, which had been adopted in 1994.[21]

In 2002, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.[22] This was essentially a reaffirmation of the Millennium Development Goals and certain other commitments made in more general declarations, to the extent that they were applicable to Africa.

                And in 2008, the General Assembly adopted the Political Declaration on Africa’s Development Needs.[23] The Declaration aimed to reaffirm a ‘belief in a prosperous future for Africa in which core human values of dignity and peace are fully enshrined.’[24] In that Declaration, the Assembly ‘stress[ed] that eradicating poverty, particularly in Africa, [was] the greatest global challenge facing the world today,’[25] and that ‘Africa face[d] a number of serious challenges, including poverty, hunger, climate change, land degradation and desertification, rapid urbanization, lack of adequate water supplies and energy supply and HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other endemic diseases.’[26] To meet all these formidable challenges, the Members of the General Assembly committed themselves to ‘assisting African countries in their struggle for lasting peace, economic growth, poverty eradication and sustainable development.’[27] One of the essentials for achieving all these goals was, in view of the Assembly, ‘good governance at all levels’ in Africa.[28] To assist Africa in this field, the States of the Assembly recommitted themselves to ‘actively protecting and promoting all human rights, the rule of law and democracy.’ [29] The Assembly also called upon developed States to honor previous commitments relating to official development assistance to Africa, and stressed the importance of attracting foreign direct investment.[30] Once again, the recommended measures and the urgency of the situation did not correspond.

          Of course, the relevance of all these declarations can be disputed, since few of them contain binding commitments, and most of the pledges made in those declarations have only partially been honored, or not at all. In a time when European States and the USA are dealing with their own problems, it is imperative that the UN General Assembly keeps reminding States of the situation elsewhere in the world.

[1]              Declaration on the Critical Economic Situation in Africa, annexed to General Assembly reolution 39/29, adopted 3 December 1984.

[2]              Idem, para. 1.

[3]              Idem, para. 6.

[4]              Idem, para. 5.

[5]              See idem, para. 9 and (especially) paras. 17-19.

[6]              United Nations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development 1986-1990, annexed to General Assembly resolution S-13/2, adopted 1 June 1986, published in Resolutions and Decisions adopted by the General Assembly during its Thirteenth Special Session 27 May – 1 June 1986, UNDoc. A/S-13/16.

[7]              Idem, para. 2.

[8]              Idem.

[9]              Idem.

[10]           Idem, para. 3.

[11]           Idem.

[12]           Idem, paras. 9-13 and para. 14.

[13]           Idem, paras. 14-20.

[14]           Assessment of the Implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, 1986-1990, part I of the annex to General Assembly resolution 46/151, adopted 18 December 1991. 

[15]           Idem, para. 1. In paras. 17-44, the document looks in considerable detail at how Africa and the rest of the world acted on the commitments made in the Programme of Action.

[16]           United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990’s, part II of the annex to General Assembly resolution 46/151, adopted 18 December 1991. 

[17]           Idem, para. 1.

[18]           See idem, paras. 10-21 and paras. 22-41.

[19]             Secretary-General Annan already pointed at the special needs of Africa in his very influential report entitled The causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, Report of the Secretary-General, distributed 13 April 1998, UNDoc A/52/871.

[20]           Millennium Declaration, para. 28.

[21]           United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, published in United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1954, p. 3 and further.

[22]           United Nations Declaration on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, General Assembly resolution 57/2, adopted 16 September 2002.

[23]           Political Declaration on Africa’s Development Needs, annexed to General Assembly resolution 63/1, adopted 22 September 2008.

[24]           Idem, para. 38.

[25]           Idem, para. 5.

[26]           Idem, para. 23.

[27]           Idem, para. 7.

[28]           Idem, para. 8.

[29]           Idem.

[30]           Idem, paras. 9-15.

Goettingen Journal of International Law Essay Competition

Posted on by
Reply

The Goettingen Journal of International Law (GoJIL), founded in 2007, is currently seeking submissions for its 5th International Law Essay Competition. GoJIL is an e-journal of legal scholarship focusing on International Law. It is the first student-run German International Law journal published exclusively in English. The journal is available online and free of charge. If you win, your article will be published online and accessible.

To participate in the GoJIL International Student Essay Competition 2012, follow the following guidelines:

  • Topic: “The Interplay of International and National Law”

  • Max. 3000 words

  • Microsoft Word format

  • Footnotes, rather than endnotes

  • The deadline is 15 August 2012.

  • For further details see the GoJIL website: www.gojil.eu

Shared Responsibility in International Law (SHARES) Visiting Fellowship

Posted on by
Reply

The Research Project on Shared Responsibility in International Law (SHARES) invites expressions of interest for a SHARES Visiting Fellowship. Applications can be made by doctoral researchers, who are at least in the second year of their studies, post-doctoral researchers and senior researchers.SHARES Visiting Fellows will be offered the following facilities:

  •  work space at the ACIL with a computer
  • a University of Amsterdam email account
  •  access to the University of Amsterdam Law School Library

Applications are accepted on a continuing basis and should include the following documentation:

  • research proposal of max 1,000 words describing research questions, expected results, and the projected contribution to the SHARES Project
  • curriculum vitae, including list of publications
  • envisaged period and names of two referees
  • statement of funding, in case a request for a stipend is made

The documentation should be sent to shares-fdr@uva.nl. For more information, please see our website (link) and/or contact Martine van Trigt at shares-fdr@uva.nl.

“Jus – Post – Bellum”: Mapping the normative foundations (May 31– June 1, 2012, The Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands)

Posted on by
Reply

The project is proud to host its launch conference, "‘Jus – Post – Bellum’: Mapping the normative foundations", May 31 – June 1, 2012. It will be held at the Peace Palace. The first of several project seminars, this conference will seek to clarify the meaning and content of the concept (including, e.g., its relationship to and distinction from the field of transitional justice), including contemporary understandings and criticisms of the concept, and historical and modern approaches towards the definitions of key notions, such as "jus", "post" and "bellum".

The launch conference will include five panels:

  • Situating the Concept,
  • Mapping the Normative Framework(s),
  • the Politics and Practice of Jus Post Bellum,
  • Temporal Dimensions of Jus Post Bellum,
  • and The ‘Jus’ in ‘Jus Post Bellum.’

There will also be a roundtable discussion on ‘At War’s End,’ by Larry May.

Conference speakers and participants include Freya Baetens, Rogier Bartels, Christine Bell, Eric de Brabandere, Robert Cryer, Jennifer Easterday, Mark Evans, Dieter Fleck, Gregory Fox, James Gallen, Terry Gill, Jens Iverson, Dov Jacobs, Jann Kleffner, Claus Kress, Randall Lesaffer, Larry May, Larry May, Jens Meierhenrich, Nneka Okechukwu, Inger Osterdahl, Cymie Payne, Yael Ronen, Aurel Sari, Matthew Saul, Carsten Stahn, Astri Suhrke, Ruti Teitel, Roxana Vatanparast, Martin Wahlisch, and Dominik Zaum.

Please fill out the linked form to apply to attend the Jus Post Bellum Project launch conference.

For more information, please see the draft programme and the call for papers.