Home

El próximo lunes 10 de junio de 2013, a partir de las 10:30 horas, tendrá lugar un seminario organizado en el contexto del proyecto de investigación sobre la protección de los bienes jurídicos globales, en el que el Profesor Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Catedrático Emérito de Derecho Internacional y Europeo del Instituto Universitario de Florencia, Italia, presentará una ponencia sobre su trabajo “Constituting, Limiting, Regulating and Justifying Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods: From Constitutional Nationalism to Multilevel Constitutionalism and Cosmopolitan Constitutionalism?”

El profesor Markus Wagner, Universidad de Miami, abrirá la discusión con un comentario sobre la contribución del Profesor Petersmann.

El seminario será moderado por el Profesor Carlos Espósito, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

El programa empieza a las 10:30 horas y termina a las 13:00 horas, incluida una pausa café de 15 minutos. El lugar de celebración es el Seminario VIII de la cuarta planta del edificio de la Facultad de Derecho de la UAM y la lengua de trabajo será el inglés.

Rogamos confirmar la intención de asistir a nicolas.carrillo@uam.es antes del miércoles 5 de junio con el fin de prever la capacidad de la sala.

 A continuación reproducimos el abstract del trabajo y aquí se puede descargar el texto completo del artículo y un resumen para el seminario.

Constituting, Limiting, Regulating and Justifying Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods: Methodological Problems of International Economic Law Research

by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann

 

Abstract

This contribution discusses legal and methodological problems of multilevel governance of the international trading, development, environmental and legal systems from the perspective of “public goods theories” and related legal theories. The state-centred, power-oriented governance practices in worldwide organizations fail to protect effectively human rights, transnational rule of law and other international public goods for the benefit of citizens. Their criticism by civil society, democratic parliaments and courts of justice prompts increasing opposition to non-inclusive, intergovernmental rule-making, as in the case of the 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement rejected by the European Parliament. The “democracy deficits” and morally often unjustified power politics underlying “Westphalian intergovernmentalism” weaken the overall coherence of multilevel regulation of interdependent public goods that interact “horizontally” (e.g., the monetary, trading, development, environmental and related legal systems) as well as “vertically” (e.g., in case of “aggregate public goods” composed of local, national, regional and worldwide public goods). The “laboratory” of European multilevel governance offers lessons for reforming worldwide governance institutions dominated by executives. The integration of nation states into an interdependent, globalized world requires a multilevel integration law in order to protect transnational public goods more effectively. Legal and constitutional theories need to be integrated into public goods research and must promote stronger legal, judicial and democratic accountability of intergovernmental rule-making vis-à-vis citizens on the basis of “cosmopolitan constitutionalism” evaluating the legitimacy of national legal systems also in terms of their contribution to protecting cosmopolitan rights and transnational public goods.

Forthcoming Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence (GCYILJ) 2012 (2013).

Sur – Revista Internacional de Derechos Humanos, una revista semestral publicada en inglés, portugués y español por Conectas Derechos Humanos, publica en su último número un artículo que escribimos con Patricio Galella sobre la relación conceptual entre entregas extraordinarias y desapariciones forzadas en la lucha contra el terrorismo. En los siguientes enlaces pueden descargar gratuitamente el texto en cualquiera de los tres idiomas. Muchas gracias a los editores de Sur, que hacen un trabajo magnífico, que les lleva una considerable cantidad de tiempo y esfuerzo.

RESUMEN

Tras los atentados de septiembre de 2001, el Presidente de EE.UU. George W. Bush declaró una ‘guerra’ global contra el terrorismo internacional y autorizó un programa de secuestros, detenciones y traslados de presuntos terroristas hacia prisiones secretas en terceros Estados, en los que se sospecha que se utiliza la tortura como método interrogatorio, con el objeto de obtener información sobre futuros atentados terroristas. Esta práctica, denominada ‘entregas extraordinarias’, bajo ciertas condiciones, va más allá de la figura de la detención arbitraria y presenta similitudes con la figura de la desaparición forzada de personas. La distinción tiene relevancia, entre otras razones, porque las entregas extraordinarias que pudieran calificarse como desapariciones forzadas podrían constituir una violación de normas de ius cogens, generar una responsabilidad internacional agravada para los Estados a los que se atribuyese la autoría de esos actos ilícitos y la posible comisión de crímenes de lesa humanidad para los autores individuales.

Original en español. Recibido en noviembre de 2011. Aceptado en abril de 2012.

RESUMO

Depois dos atentados em setembro de 2001, o então presidente dos Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, declarou uma “guerra” global contra o terrorismo internacional e autorizou um programa de sequestros, detenções e traslados de supostos terroristas para prisões secretas em Estados terceiros, nos quais há suspeita de utilização de tortura como método interrogatório, com o objetivo de obter informações sobre futuros atentados terroristas. Essa prática, denominada “entregas extraordinárias”, extrapola a figura da detenção arbitrária, sob certas condições, e apresenta semelhanças com o desaparecimento forçado de pessoas. A distinção tem relevância, entre outros motivos, porque as entregas extraordinárias passíveis de serem qualii cadas como desaparecimentos forçados poderiam constituir uma violação de normas de jus cogens, gerar uma responsabilidade internacional agravada para os Estados aos quais se atribuíssem a autoria desses atos ilícitos e a possível acusação de crimes de lesa humanidade aos autores individuais.

Original em espanhol. Traduzido por Pedro Maia

ABSTRACT

After the attacks of September 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush declared a global ‘war’ against international terrorism and authorized a program of kidnappings, detentions, and transfers of presumed terrorists to secret prisons in third-party States, in which it is suspected that torture was used as a means of interrogation with the goal of obtaining information about future terrorist attacks. This practice, called ‘extraordinary rendition,’ under certain conditions goes further than arbitrary detention and shows similarities to the forced disappearance of persons. The distinction is relevant, among other reasons, because cases of Extraordinary Renditions that could be classified as forced disappearance may constitute a violation of ius cogens, generating international responsibility for States and the possibility of perpetrating crimes against humanity for individuals who commit these illegal acts.

Original in Spanish. Translated by Peter Musson.

Hace diez días, con ocasión del comienzo de las nuevas audiencias en el caso Kiobel contra Royal Dutch Petroleum en el Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU., se publicó un editorial en el NYT defendiendo la posibilidad de que las empresas puedan ser demandadas en tribunales federales de Estados Unidos por graves violaciones de derechos humanos. Un editorial sencillo, directo y con una posición clarísima, en una palabra: ejemplar. Se llama “Justice under the Law of Nations” y se puede leer aquí.

El Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos publica la oferta de varias plazas para pasantes de investigación en su sede de Londres. Las pasantías empezarán en 2012 y 2013. Se buscan pasantes con excelente nivel de español e inglés y con excelente nivel de francés e inglés. La fecha límite para enviar las solicitudes es el 18 de octubre del 2012.  La duración mínima de las pasantías es de 4 meses de tiempo completo u 8 meses de tiempo parcial. Aquí está toda la información, incluidos los formularios para hacer las solicitudes. Como siempre: ¡muy buena suerte!

Romulo Gallegos Fellowship 2013

1) Venue of Fellowship: Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS). Address: 1889 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006, United States of America

2) Modality: On-site

3) Deadline to present applications: October 31, 2012

4) Start and End Dates: January 16, 2013 to December 31, 2013

5) Length of the Fellowship: 11 ½ (eleven and a half) months

6) Objective: To provide an opportunity for young lawyers from OAS Member States to understand and apply the mechanisms of protection of the inter-American system of human rights.

7) Program: a) To assist with tasks of the Executive Secretariat of the Commission, under the supervision of its human rights specialists during the period of the fellowship; and b) at the end of the fellowship, present to the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR a detailed report on activities carried out by the fellow.

8) Requirements:

·         Be a citizen of an OAS Member State;

·         Be bilingual in Spanish and English (attach certificates testifying thereto), knowledge of French or Portuguese desirable;

·         Have graduated in law from an officially recognized university (attach copy of the law degree and grades obtained);

·         Have received law degree after January 1, 2006;

·         Have a demonstrable professional interest in the legal field of human rights;

·         Be registered as an attorney before the courts or the appropriate professional body; in the absence of registration, indicate the reason; and

·         Present a paper of up to five pages, not edited by another person, on one or more human rights issues of interest to the candidate.

9) Required documents: The following documents are required in order to be considered for the fellowship:

·         Letter of interest

·         Completed Fellowship Application (LINK)

·         Two letters of recommendation

·         Curriculum vitae

·         Certification of second language a Copy of law degree and grades obtained a Proof of registration as an attorney before the courts or the appropriate professional body (if applicable)

·         Written paper of up to five pages

10) Benefits:

·         The IACHR provides a monthly stipend of US$3,000.00 for the period covered by the fellowship, that is US$34,500.00 total for 11½ months. With the stipend provided, the fellow is responsible for obtaining health insurance coverage of his/her choosing for the duration of the fellowship, and should provide proof of coverage to the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR.

·         Round-trip economy class air transportation from the participant’s country of residence toWashington, D.C. Terminal and transfer expenses are not covered.

·         The IACHR will award a certificate of participation in the Fellowship Program to the fellows who satisfactorily complete the entire period of the fellowship.

11) Responsibilities of the selected candidates:

·         Once an applicant has been selected, he/she should formally accept the fellowship in writing, confirming with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights his/her availability to complete the fellowship during the specified time period. Once accepted, the IACHR will proceed with the necessary arrangements for purchase of round-trip economy air transportation between the candidate’s country of origin/residence and Washington, D.C.

·         In the event a candidate accepts a fellowship but cannot complete it, for whatever reason, he/she must immediately inform the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights so that the course of action may be decided.

·         It is the responsibility of each selected candidate to request and obtain the necessary visa to enter the United States, and/or transit visa (if applicable) in a timely manner. The IACHR will not incur in any expense related to the processing of immigration or visa documents. The IACHR will provide the candidate a document certifying his/her selection as an official fellow of the IACHR so that he/she may request the corresponding visa, which is the sole responsibility of the selected candidate. In addition, the OAS will send a diplomatic note to the Embassy or Consulate where the selected candidate will be requesting his/her visa, certifying the fellow’s selection.

·         It is the responsibility of the selected candidate to arrive in a timely manner so that he/she will be present for the commencement of the fellowship on the date established by the IACHR.

·         If the selected candidate declines the fellowship after the flight ticket has been purchased, or does not travel on the established dates or changes routes, the candidate shall reimburse the IACHR the cost of the flight ticket or any additional costs incurred. The latter includes any additional costs, if any, incurred by the IACHR, such as extra costs for accommodation during the candidate’s travel to and from Washington, D.C.

·         If the candidate resigns, cancels or terminates the fellowship after the program has begun without providing sufficient reason and evidence to the IACHR for doing so, he/she will fully reimburse the IACHR for all costs incurred on his/her behalf.

12) Presentation of candidates:

The application and other required documents indicated in sections 8 and 9 must be submitted to the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR prior to the closing date of the application period, by email, fax or mail:

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
1889 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., 20006 U.S.A.

cidhdenuncias@oas.org

Telephone: 202-458-6002 Fax: 202-458-3992

More information on IACHR Fellowships

Call for papers: GLOTHRO WORKSHOP ON THE DIRECT HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF CORPORATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (17-19 January 2013, Bled)

Topic

Corporations play an important role in the realisation of the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of their employees and of the society as a whole. For example, they are responsible for guaranteeing adequate labour conditions to their employees, and they may be involved in the provision of basic services to communities. They can become violators of human rights, for example where their activities lead to denial of access to water, food, housing, health and education or where their activities infringe upon right to life, right to privacy or freedom of expression. This workshop will try to answer, among others, these fundamental questions: Do corporations have direct obligations in international human rights law? Are corporations obliged to comply with international human rights norms when doing business extraterritorially? How can link between direct state and corporate human rights obligations under international human rights law be generally established? Should states and corporations be responsible for financially supporting criminal regimes? What is the role of international human rights law in the context of business and human rights?

Venue and format

The three day workshop will be held at the Graduate School of Government and European Studies in the beautiful surroundings of lake Bled (Slovenia) between 17-19 January 2013.

This event aims to bring together senior and junior experts on business and human rights. By bringing together academic and practical experience, the workshop will make an important contribution to advancing the academic debate on the direct human rights obligations of corporations in international law. On the first day senior experts will indroduce the topic. On the second participants will present their research through paper presentations. Presentations will be grouped thematically and panels will allow for discussion following each paper. Building on the deliberations of the first day and the second day, the third day of the workshop will be dedicated to a debate amongst academics and practitioners of the most important research that is needed in order to anwser the question whether corporations have direct international legal obligations in international human rights law.

All participants will be asked to prepare a short discussion paper (1000-2000 words). The selected papers will be thereafter published in an edited volume.

Financial support

Travel expenses, accommodation and meals will be covered by GLOTHRO (http://www.glothro.org) for selected participants comming from ESF member countries. The GLOTHRO RNP member countries are : Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy (EUI), The Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden (http://www.esf.org/about-esf/what-is-the-european-science-foundation/72-member-organisations.html).

Submissions

The Graduate School of Government and European Studies invites researchers undertaking research on business and human rights to submit abstracts for consideration. Interested applicants should send a 200 word abstract and a CV in narrative form by the 30 October 2012 to jernej.letnar@fds.si. Authors will be notified of acceptance by 10 November 2012. If you have any questions, please email jernej.letnar@fds.si.

El amigo Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky ha publicado en la International Human Rights Law Review un largo estudio sobre complicidad en la financiación de regímenes autoritarios, derechos humanos y justicia transicional.  Felicitaciones. Aquí está el abstract:

This article argues that lenders providing financial assistance to authoritarian regimes should be held responsible for complicity if they knew or should have known that they would facilitate human rights abuses. Discussing the lenders’ role in a transitional justice context leads to a broadening of legal and institutional tools to channel this responsibility. This article starts by critically assessing the micro criteria traditionally used to understand the causal link between finance and human rights abuses, suggesting that a macro (i.e. holistic, interdisciplinary and casuistic) approach considering structures, processes and dynamics of sovereign financing should be applied when interpreting this link. It also explains how that traditional view is being challenged. A rational choice approach is taken to explain the most salient financial features of large-scale campaigns of gross human rights violations in order to understand the real relevance of funds in contexts of criminal regimes. The legal bases of responsibility for complicity are then discussed, separately presenting the arguments applied to private, multilateral and bilateral lenders. It also outlines how the missing financial link could be integrated into the domain of transitional justice, presenting, elaborating and assessing enforceability of concrete mechanisms to channel financial complicity in order to attain transitional goals. Finally, concluding remarks and challenges on the relationship between financial complicity and transitional justice are presented; and policy and economic considerations are made to better understand the real implications that incorporating the financial dimension into the transitional justice universe could have for a country.

El Centro de Información Judicial de la Argentina brinda la siguiente información: “La Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación declaró inadmisible el recurso extraordinario presentado contra la sentencia de la Cámara Federal de Casación Penal en una causa por un atentado ocurrido, en el año 1976, en un edificio de la por entonces Superintendencia de Seguridad de la Policía Federal. (…)

En el caso se investigaba el estallido de un artefacto explosivo instalado en el casino del edificio de la entonces Superintendencia de Seguridad de la Policía Federal Argentina, ubicado en la calle Moreno 1431 de esta Ciudad, el día 2 de julio de 1976, que dejara como consecuencia la destrucción parcial del referido recinto y un saldo de varios muertos.”

El texto del fallo completo puede hallarse aquí: http://www.cij.gov.ar/inicio.html

Espero poder comentar algo sobre el tema en breve.Es interesante la discusión de en qué casos los delitos cometidos por grupos no estatales pueden considerarse crímenes internacionales a los efectos de, por ejemplo, la competencia universal o su imprescriptibilidad. En principio, tengo afinidad con la decisión adoptada, pero como siempre hay que ver los fundamentos.

Naomi Roth-Arriaza ha publicado un breve artículo sobre el caso Garzón en la serie ASIL Insights: The Spanish Civil War, Amnesty, and the Trials of Judge Garzón. Naomi es conocida por sus escritos sobre justicia transicional, especialmente por su excelente libro The Pinochet Effect, y también por sus contribuciones como abogada en la defensa de derechos humanos. El efecto cerrojo de la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, junto a la sentencia del TEDH, ha sido expuesto y discutido en España, pero es muy útil e interesante que pueda ahora leerse una explicación tan precisa en inglés para una audiencia más amplia interesada por el derecho internacional y los derechos humanos.

El manuscrito de mi artículo Jus Cogens and Jurisdictional Immunities of States at the International Court of Justice: A Conflict Does Exist”, que será publicado en el próximamente en el Italian Yearbook of International Law (vol. 21, 2011), ya se puede consultar y descargar desde esta dirección en SSRN. A continuación transcribo el abstract.

In its judgment of 3 February 2012 in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), the International Court of Justice has considered the relationship between jus cogens and the rule of State immunity. The Court has denied the existence of a jus cogens exception to the rule of State jurisdictional immunities based primarily on the distinction between peremptory norms as rules of substance and jurisdictional immunities as rules of procedure. For the Court, a conflict between rules on jurisdictional immunities, “essentially procedural in nature,” and substantive rules of jus cogens is conceptually impossible. This comment presents a critique of the approach and reasoning of the Court regarding the absolute separation between procedural and substantive rules, and supports that a legal conflict may exist between jus cogens and jurisdictional immunities. Moreover, it sustains that the decision of the Court is neither an ideal kind of stability for international law nor an encouraging legal message to national judges dealing with public interest claims arising from serious violations of international law.

Gracias por los comentarios y las críticas.