¡Gracias Fede!
Esa es la interesante propuesta de Juan Menor y Manuel Mostaza en un artículo publicado hoy:
«[E]n los Juegos de 2020, los deportistas europeos, a semejanza de lo que ocurre en la Ryder, deberían competir unidos contra el resto de deportistas del mundo, para ayudarnos a todos a generar una ficción: la ficción de una Europa convertida en un pueblo y que defiende, orgullosa, la importancia de su cultura y de sus valores frente al resto del planeta. Es una ficción, claro que lo es, ¿pero es hay alguna identidad que no sea imaginada?»
Quizá se podría inventar un hashtag en twitter para apoyar la idea entre los ciudadanos europeos.
Asier Garrido Múñoz: Garantías judiciales y sanciones antiterroristas del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas
abril 23, 2013
Asier Garrido Múñoz me manda su nuevo libro sobre Garantías judiciales y sanciones antiterroristas del CSNU, publicado por la editorial Tirant . ¡Felicitaciones al autor! Si alguien quiere comentar o discutir el libro, manden sus comentarios al blog. Quizás incluso Asier nos quiera mandar un post con sus comentarios sobre los últimos desarrollos en el Consejo de Seguridad, la decisión del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el caso Nada v Switzerland de 12 de septiembre de 2012 y las conclusiones del Abogado General Yves Bot de 19 de marzo de 2013 en el caso Kadi IV.
Una buena noticia: ya está publicado el programa y todos los datos para inscribirse y, en su caso, pedir una beca para los Cursos de Derecho internacional de Vitoria-Gasteiz, que este año tendrán lugar desde 1l 15 al 18 de julio de 2013 (¡que en esta ocasión vuelven a coincidir en parte con el festival de jazz! ¡Atención: la guitarra de Paco de Lucía, el maravilloso saxo de Branford Marsalis, el piano de Chick Corea o la voz de Melodie Gardot!). Además, como novedad, este año hay un programa de cursos online basado en los cursos impartidos el año pasado. Este es el programa de los cursos de 2013:
CURSOS DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL Y RELACIONES INTERNACIONALES
DE VITORIA-GASTEIZ 2013
15 al 18 de julio de 2013
VITORIA-GASTEIZKO NAZIOARTEKO ZUZENBIDEAREN ETA NAZIOARTEKO
HARREMANEN IKASTAROAK 2013
2013ko uztailaren 15etik 18ra
Dr. D. Francisco Jesús Carrera Hernández
Catedrático de Derecho Internacional Público de la Universidad de La Rioja.
Hacia una nueva arquitectura de la gobernanza económica en la Unión Europea
Dr. D. Guillermo Palao Moreno
Catedrático Derecho Internacional privado de la Universidad de Valencia.
Rupturas matrimoniales en la Unión Europea: la regulación comunitaria sobre divorcios, separaciones y nulidad matrimonial
Dra. Dª. Carmen Martínez Capdevila
Profesora Titular de Derecho Internacional Público de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
El Derecho derivado de la Unión Europea tras el Tratado de Lisboa: ¿del caos al orden?
Dr. D. Angel Sánchez Legido
Profesor Titular de Derecho Internacional Público de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
La regulación internacional del comercio de armas
Dra. Dª. Mercedes Guinea Llorente
Profesora Titular Interina de Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Las consecuencias de la crisis económica para el modelo político de la Unión Europea: profundización, diferenciación y déficit de legitimidad
Dra. Dª. Leire Moure Peñín
Profesora de Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Orden internacional en transición y Relaciones Internacionales: aproximaciones teóricas al declive hegemónico estadounidense y el ascenso de China como potencia global
Dr. D. Juan Manuel Velázquez Gardeta
Profesor Agregado de Derecho Internacional Privado de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Últimas tendencias en la protección del consumidor online. Con especial atención a la jurisprudencia norteamericana y del TJUE
Vacancy: Legal Advisor at the Council of Europe
abril 11, 2013
Director of Legal Advice and Public International Law at the Council of Europe. Yes, you’ve read it well! Open until 23 April 2013.
Reflets del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea
abril 11, 2013
El último número de los Reflets del TJUE está dedicado monográficamente a la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales. Es un documento realmente muy útil e interesante. Los Reflets son Informaciones rápidas sobre los desarrollos jurídicos que presentan un interés para la Union Europea; se elaboran en francés, aunque tienen citas en inglés y hay algunos números traducidos al inglés por la ACA-Europe. Lo dicho, una información bien presentada y muy útil.
Ayer estuve en el panel de la conferencia annual de la American Society of International Law que moderó Ariel Dulitzky (Universidad de Texas) sobre la crisis del sistema internamericano de derechos humanos. No hubo acuerdo sobre si hoy, después de la resolución de 22 de marzo de 2013, había crisis o no. Dos de los cuatro panelistas, los embajadores Joel Hernández de México y Breno de Souza Díaz de Costa de Brazil en EE.UU., sostuvieron que la resolución de la Asamblea extraordinaria de la OEA de 22 de marzo significaba una superación de la crisis, que el resultado era positivo y se había “recuperado la confianza”. La profesora Mónica Pinto (Universidad de Buenos Aires) y, sobre todo, el Sr. José Miguel Vivanco (Human Rights Watch) se inclinaron por explicar las razones por las que la crisis seguía existiendo o incluso se había potenciado con la falta de cierre de la resolución.
Los temas más controvertidos que se plantearon estuvieron ligados al significado de las palabras “continuación del diálogo” en la citada resolución, la controversia sobre la financiación de la Comisión y la propuesta de cambiar la sede de la Comisión a San José de Costa Rica. El trasfondo de la discusión revela una lucha de poder entre concepciones distintas sobre la práctica y la función de la Comisión. Nadie duda de que, como dijo la profesora Pinto, hay un nuevo equilibrio de poderes en la región, con organizaciones nuevas como el ALBA y Unasur, cuyos países se muestran descontentos con ciertas prácticas de la Comisión y también con el hecho de que muchos países con poder de votos se ubican fuera, al margen del sistema de control de derechos humanos, como Estados Unidos, Canadá y otros tantos países caribeños, que sin embargo consiguen sumar hasta 14 votos de los 34 posibles, sin contar a Haití. Es por esto que los países del ALBA van a seguir presionando para lograr mayores cambios, incluida su propuesta de cambiar la sede de la Comisión.
José Miguel Vivanco fue el más crítico con los países ALBA, que para él estos países usan la idea de soberanía en contradicción con los derechos humanos, para poner freno a los derechos humanos, impidiendo el ejercicio de la protección que la Comisión debe llevar a cabo. Para Vivanco, el problema de la financiación quedó pendiente (recordó que Europa paga el 30 por ciento del presupuesto de la Comisión), pero el compromiso de la continuación del diálogo, que fue prospuesto por el Canciller argentino para salvar la resolución, deja abierto todo.
Hubo una cierta coincidencia en que la universalidad era uno de los grandes desafíos para el sistema, es decir, la participación efectiva de todos los Estados en el sistema de derechos humanos. Un puente lejano, por lo que respecta a países como Estados Unidos, en el que ni siquiera se discute como un problema la falta de ratificación de la Convención Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Yo pregunté por el papel de la Corte Interamericana en esta crisis, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta el rol activo que tuvo la Corte en la crisis del Perú. Dulitzky fue claro: el presidente de la CIDH tuvo un papel muy criticable cuando declaró que todo esto era un problema de la Comisión, no de la Corte. Destacó además que la Comisión era la primera defensora de la Corte.
El diálogo continuará…
ESIL Lecture de la Profesora Anne Orford en la Sorbonne: Histories of International Law and Empire
abril 1, 2013
La ESIL Lecture de la profesora Anne Orford sobre “Histories of International Law and Empire” está disponible en el website de la ESIL website. En su conferencia, la profesora Orford defiende que «el pensamiento de derecho internacional debe ser anacrónico». Copio el abstract:
ESIL Lecture Series
and
CYCLE DE CONFERENCES SORBONNE-DROIT
Histories of International Law and Empire
Professor Anne Orford
Abstract
There is a growing body of international legal scholarship concerned with the question of whether and how the imperial past is relevant to the internationalist present. The exploration of this question brings international lawyers into conversation with scholars studying similar issues in world history, philosophy, politics, literature, postcolonial studies, critical geography, intellectual history, and political economy. Yet as is often the case with interdisciplinary work, the resulting discussions have been riven by conflicts and territorial disputes over the proper way to interpret, understand, and study particular texts, events, or figures. This lecture addresses some of the methodological challenges that international legal scholars face when we attempt to write histories of international law and empire.
More particularly, this lecture is a defence of the place of anachronism in international legal thinking. The claim that we might want to study the imperial past because of its implications for the present represents an implicit challenge to the approach to the history of political thought that has dominated much Anglophone scholarship over the past forty years. The contextualist Cambridge school of intellectual history has cultivated a sensitivity to anachronism amongst historians of European political thought, particularly that of early modern Europe. Historians influenced by that school argue that past texts must not be approached anachronistically in light of current debates, problems and linguistic usages, or in a search for the development of canonical themes, fundamental concepts, or timeless doctrines. The clear demarcation between past and present that underpins much modern historical research requires that everything must be placed in the context of its time, and present-day questions must not be allowed to distort our interpretation of past events, texts, or concepts. Anachronism is one of the most regularly denounced sins of historical scholarship.
This lecture argues in contrast that international legal thinking is necessarily anachronic – that is, that the operation of modern law is not governed solely by a chronological sense of time, in which events and texts are confined to their proper place in a historical progression from then to now. The past, far from being fixed and immutable, is constantly being retrieved by lawyers as a source or rationalisation of present obligation. Thus while some legal historians identify as historians, and preach against the sin of anachronism, lawyers are and must be sinners in this sense. If the self-imposed task of today’s contextualist historians is to think about concepts in their proper time and place, the task of international legal scholars is to think about how concepts move across time and space.
Para proponer una ESIL Lecture, por favor siga estas indicaciones.
The Changing Nature of International Environmental Law: Evolving Approaches of the United States and the European Union
Joint Symposium ASIL/ESIL International Environmental Law Interest Groups
The Graduate Institute – Geneva
Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement | Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
22-23 November 2013
Call for Papers – Deadline: Friday, 3 May 2013
The International Environmental Law Interest Groups of the American Society of International Law and the European Society of International Law are delighted to announce that their First Joint Symposium will take place on 22-23 November 2013 at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. The Co-Chairs and Convenors of the Interest Groups join in thanking the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies and our host, Professor Jorge Viñuales, Director of the Programme on Environmental Studies of the Institute’s Centre for International Environmental Studies, for their kind generosity in providing a venue and refreshments for the Symposium.
Symposium Theme
International Environmental Law is not in the same space that it occupied in 1972 when it burst forth on the international agenda with the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. For some time we have been witnessing a fundamental shift in the nature of international environmental law (IEL) from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Many reasons might lay behind this shift. For a start, IEL has had to innovate its way around the “sovereignty barrier” – foundational principles and norms of general international law that continue to uphold a state-based system of international politics and law that is often seen as counter-productive to solving global and regional environmental problems. IEL has done this, in part, through science driven norms, non-consensus decision-making, and a focus on promoting compliance rather than labeling action wrongful with a view to invoking state responsibility.
Then too, IEL has experienced “bottom up” influence from developments in national approaches to environmental protection. Increasingly, IEL has adopted of “second generation” national regulatory techniques including the use of markets, flexibility mechanisms, and privatization. In addition, the underlying reality, which IEL is trying to co-ordinate and steer, is changing. The reality of significant environmental impacts associated with global markets and international investment flows appears to call for a more normatively expansive and inclusive approach. The increasing influence of host of non-state actors such as transnational corporations and expert non-governmental organizations raise questions about participation in and the legitimacy of decision-making and compliance processes.
An emerging new approach to IEL ought to enable us to understand the way various types of soft norms and non-state action influence (or not) the behavior states and key actors beyond states. In this context, most pollution and conservation problems need to be addressed outside of the traditional state system, in what is increasingly described as a multi-level governance framework, with various types of actors having an influence how these norms develop and are supervised. Environmental law approaches and methods have become globalized in various ways, not only by states borrowing from other jurisdictions, but also because e.g. multilateral environmental agreements MEA’s harmonize the way environmental governance is done in various jurisdictions. These environmental law principles and approaches not only travel between national jurisdictions but they also migrate between various levels of governance.
At the same time these macro changes have been influencing the nature of IEL, the approaches to and practice of IEL by the United States and European states is also shifting. Due to their environmental footprint, their economic and geopolitical power, and their technological and financial resources, the US and the EU have a critical impact on the world’s environment, as well as a distinctive ability to shape global environmental politics. Meanwhile, and despite common interests, these two elephants are often said to have developed different approaches to IEL. Notwithstanding strong support for early environmental agreements, the US position over the past two decades has been described as one of disengagement and withdrawal, shying away from binding environmental commitments and favouring unilateral and domestic environmental policies. In contrast, Europe is commonly thought to be a consistent supporter of multilateralism and of legally binding environmental agreements. Additionally, the US and the EU have exhibited marked differences in relation to key IEL principles, from precaution to differential treatment.
The aim of the Symposium, then, is twofold. First, it aims to engage in a search for more sophisticated, nuanced and complex approaches to environmental problem solving and underlying theory of IEL based on the changing nature of the field. Following last year’s Rio+ 20 Conference, we are well placed to consider potential paradigm changers, including whether the concept of sustainable development is still the best idea around which to organize legal protection of the global environment; whether alternative concepts/models might be more effective in stopping environmental harm and improving environmental quality; whether the current preoccupation with “implementation” best serves global environmental protection; and whether international law is up to the regulatory challenges posed by continuing world population growth and increasing consumption.
Secondly, the Symposium also seeks to intensify the transatlantic debate about these important questions, as well as to bring experts from various disciplines and backgrounds to discuss cutting-edge research in the field of IEL. As President Obama begins his second term in office, it seems an opportune time to not only consider the changing nature of IEL, but also to revisit and explore anew the nature, the extent, and indeed the reality of this transatlantic divide and its significance for the development of IEL. Do IEL scholars make too much of US/EU divergences? How do these divergences manifest in specific environmental regimes? What role, if any, do academic, scholarly or theoretical traditions play in the perception of the EU/US divide? Has the Obama administration worked to widen or narrow this divide?
Call for Proposals and Abstracts
The Co-Chairs and Convenors cordially invite the submission of proposals and abstracts on the theme of The Changing Nature of International Environmental Law: Evolving Approaches of the United States and the European Union. Papers presented at the Symposium will be selected through a competitive process. The selection process will be based exclusively on the scholarly merit of proposals received and priority will be given to unpublished papers and work in progress. We welcome proposals from practitioners, diplomats, academics and graduate students that are attentive to one or more aspects of the Symposium theme outlined below.
Each submission should include an abstract of the proposed presentation of no more than 700 words in English or French and a short CV in English or French. Applications should be submitted in a WORD or PDF format. They should be emailed to both Alejandra Torres Camprubi (atorrescamprubi@yahoo.es) and Timo Koivurova (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi). Please indicate “2013 ASIL/ESIL Symposium” in the subject line of the email.
Deadline
The deadline for submission of proposals is Friday, 3 May 2013. The outcome of the selection process will be notified to all applicants by Monday, 3 June 2013. After selection, each presenter will be expected to produce a draft paper by Monday, 2 September 2013 for circulation among the other Symposium participants.
Basic Symposium details
It is anticipated that the Symposium will run for one day and a half. It will commence on Friday, 22 November 2013 at noon and will run until 5.30 pm on the first day. It will conclude on Saturday, 23 November 2013, but the day will be full with a 9.00 am start and a 5.00 pm wrap up.
The organizers envision a total of six panels – two panels on the first day and four panels on the second – with each panel comprised of four presenters. The contours of each panel will be determined based on proposals and abstracts that are accepted.
Publication
We believe that publishers will be interested in publishing the proceedings of the Symposium in an edited volume. The organizers reserve the right to publish the selected papers. Before publication, all papers will be submitted to peer-review.
Inquiries
For all inquiries, please contact Alejandra Torres Camprubi (atorrescamprubi@yahoo.es) and Timo Koivurova (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi).
aquiescencia 