The Venice Academy of Human Rights will take place from 9-18 July 2012. The theme of this year’s Academy is «The Limits of Human Rights».
Online registration is open until 1 May 2012.
Faculty of the Venice Academy 2012
Professor Philip Alston, NYU
Professor Seyla Benhabib, Yale
Professor Martti Koskenniemi, Helsinki
Professor Friedrich Kratochwil, CEU/EUI
Professor Bruno Simma, Ann Arbor/Munich
Professor Henry Steiner, Harvard
Erika Feller, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection
Key Facts
Participants: Academics, practitioners and PhD/JSD students
Type of courses: Lectures, seminars and optional workshops
Number of hours: 21 hours of compulsory courses (plenum), 16 hours of elective and optional courses (smaller groups)
Location: Monastery of San Nicolò, Venice – Lido, Italy
Fees: 500 €
The Venice Academy of Human Rights is a center of excellence for human rights education, research and debate. It forms part of the European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation (EIUC). The Academy offers interdisciplinary thematic programmes open to academics, practitioners and doctoral students with an advanced knowledge of human rights.
A maximum of 55 participants is selected each year.
Participants attend morning lectures, afternoon seminars and workshops and can exchange views, ideas and arguments with leading international scholars and other experts. This includes the opportunity to present and discuss their own «work in progress» such as drafts of articles, chapters of doctoral theses, books and other projects.
At the end of the program, participants receive a Certificate of Attendance issued by the Venice Academy of Human Rights.
Bianchi sobre la sentencia de la Corte International de Justicia en el caso de la inmunidad del Estado alemán
febrero 16, 2012
Excelente post del Profesor Andrea Bianchi en EJIL:Talk! No se lo pierdan. Y qué bonitas las palabras que le dedica al Juez Cançado Trindade, que transcribo a continuación:
Finally, a word of praise for Judge Cançado Trinidade (who issued a dissenting opinion in this case) is in order. His lengthy opinions and hisweltanschauung are often looked down on or frowned at. In fact, Judge Cançado is long engaged in an attempt to acculturate the international judicial bodies in which he seats and, more generally, the epistemic community of international lawyers. Suffice to cast a glance to the background, academic and/or judicial record of his fellow judges to realize how on certain fundamental issues at the ICJ he does not even belong to a minority: he is almost completely isolated. I trust he has realized by now that The Hague is a much colder place than San José. Yet his function remains fundamental. One could paraphrase Voltaire and say that ‘If Cançado did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him’. Not so much for me or for any other more or less established member of the profession, but for all those students who approach the study of international law and want to believe in the redeeming force of human rights and universal justice for a better world. Here is another hand. Of this, I am quite certain.
ESIL 4th Research Forum Papers available at SSRN
febrero 9, 2012
It is a great opportunity. The project is very interesting and the position is based at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law in Cambridge. The closing date for applications is 27 February 2012. Good luck with your applications! Here is the information:
British Red Cross Research Fellow
Location: Cambridge
Salary: Between £25,000 – £27,000 per annum
Contract: Fixed Term Contract until 31st December 2013
Hours: Full Time (35hrs per wk)
Closing Date: Midnight 27 February 2012
Overview
The British Red Cross helps people in crisis, whoever and wherever they are. We are part of a global voluntary network, responding to conflicts, natural disasters and individual emergencies.
This British Red Cross (BRC) is a part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement). As such, we work to disseminate knowledge of and to encourage respect for international humanitarian law. We co-operate closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in these areas.
In January 1995, the Intergovernmental Group of Experts for the Protection of War Victims met in Geneva and adopted a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing respect for international humanitarian law, in particular by means of preventive measures that would ensure better knowledge and more effective implementation of the law.
Recommendation II of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts proposed that:
The ICRC be invited to prepare, with the assistance of experts in IHL [international humanitarian law] representing various geographical regions and different legal systems, and in consultation with experts from governments and international organisations, a report on customary rules of IHL applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts, and to circulate the report to States and competent international bodies.
In December 1995, the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent endorsed this recommendation and officially mandated the ICRC to prepare a report on customary rules of international humanitarian law applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. The outcome of the research carried out pursuant to this mandate was published in 2005 and consists of two volumes. Volume I contains a list of 161 rules deemed to be part of customary law, and commentary thereto, while Volume II contains the supporting material.
Since 2005, Volume I has been translated into Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, French, Russian, Serbian, Spanish and Turkish. Translations of Volume I into Japanese and Portuguese are expected to be published soon. Although there are no current plans to update Volume I, work has been continuing since 2007 to update Volume II. This work is being conducted through a joint project of the ICRC and BRC, based at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge.
The purpose of updating Volume II is for government and military lawyers, legal practitioners, judges, legal personnel of international organisations and non-governmental organisations, legal officers of the Movement and academics to have easy access to accurate, extensive and geographically diverse information on practice in the field of international humanitarian law. It will also facilitate a possible future update of Volume I.
Since August 2010, both Volume I and Volume II have been freely available online through the ICRC’s Customary IHL Database.
Scope
The post holder will be part of a three-person research team based at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge. The work is co-ordinated and overseen on a day-to-day basis by a team leader. The researchers are employed by the BRC and for these purposes, report to the Head of International Law of the BRC.
The substantive work of the researchers is carried out under the direct supervision of the head of project, i.e. the ICRC legal adviser in charge of the project on customary international humanitarian law. The head of project will be in regular communication with the team from Geneva via telephone and email and, from time to time, will travel to Cambridge to meet with the team and evaluate progress.
Overall Purpose of the Post
To up-date the collection of practice supporting the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law.
Paul Stephan sobre la decisión de la CIJ en el caso de las inmunidades jurisdiccionales del Estado (Alemania v Italia)
febrero 6, 2012
El profesor Paul Stephan relaciona la decisión de la Corte Internacional de Justicia en el caso Alemania contra Italia, que califica como una victoria de concepciones tradicionales del derecho internacional frente a los intentos por privilegiar los derechos humanos sobre otros aspectos del sistema jurídico internacional, con la litigación de derechos humanos en Estados Unidos, que podría entenderse como contraria al derecho internacional tradicional a partir de la sentencia de la Corte y el voto concurrente del Juez Keith. El post está publicado en Lawfare y también se destaca en opinio juris: Paul Stephan on ICJ Decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy).
Por Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli.
La Corte Internacional de Justicia acaba de emitir su sentencia en el caso de Alemania contra Italia, donde se discutía entre otras cuestiones la oposición entre el derecho imperativo y las normas (a todas luces dispositivas, como se dijo en el caso Al-Adsani por los jueces disidentes) sobre inmunidades jurisdiccionales de los Estados. Este era el punto que esperaba con más ansias, pues esperaba que la Corte se apartase del trato tímido en exceso del derecho imperativo en sus decisiones.
Lamentablemente, la Corte empleó un argumento que ha sido discutido por la doctrina: la supuesta falta de conflicto, en tanto el derecho imperativo sustantivo no podría ser afectado por normas que tienen un componente predominantemente procesal, como las normas sobre inmunidades jurisdiccionales estatales.
Anteriormente, escribí un artículo en la Revista Jurídica de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid donde me opuse a este argumento, e igualmente los autores Kerstin Bartsch y Björn Elberling manifestaron que las normas imperativas tienen componentes tanto procesales como sustantivos, revelado por la regulación de la responsabilidad internacional frente a violaciones graves del Jus Cogens (cf. las páginas 486-488 del artículo «Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision”, German Law Journal, vol. 04, 2003).
Afortunadamente, en su opinión disidente el juez Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade, cuyas opiniones como juez en la CIJ y en la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos me parecen de obligada lectura dado su rescate del ser humano, manifestó que un abismo separa a la opinión mayoritaria de la propia, y en los párrafos 296-299 expresa de una manera convincente cómo la Corte, al insistir en una «deconstrucción» del concepto de jus cogens, deja de reconocer el despliegue de sus efectos, lo cual es lamentable dada la necesidad de proteger a los seres humanos frente a violaciones graves y de permitirles acceder a la justicia.
Los avances tecnológicos y la apertura de la CIJ permitieron que viese en vivo la lectura de apartes relevantes de la sentencia, que acaba de ser colgada en la web de la Corte.
Jueces nacionales y la protección de bienes jurídicos globales humanitarios
noviembre 20, 2011
Junto con Nicolás Carrillo hemos publicado un estudio sobre «Los jueces nacionales como garantes de bienes jurídicos humanitarios» en el último número de la Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (2011). Aquí está el resumen:
Existen bienes jurídicos globales que protegen la dignidad humana que están recogidos por normas coincidentes del Derecho internacional y los ordenamientos jurídicos internos, en cuyo respeto está interesada la comunidad internacional. Los jueces internos de los Estados tienen la posibilidad de convertirse en garantes de dichos bienes jurídicos y de representar en consecuencia a una comunidad jurídica que trasciende a la estatal. Además, su interacción con diversas comunidades jurídicas transnacionales y su contacto mediato con las fuentes del Derecho internacional les permite influir en la determinación del contenido de dichos bienes jurídicos humanitarios y asumir un papel que trasciende al de meros garantes del Derecho internacional, convirtiéndose en actores del mismo. Diversos factores sociales, psicológicos y profesionales influirán en la posición que asuman los jueces al respecto, la cual a su vez estará condicionada por los límites y oportunidades ofrecidas en los Derechos internos que los revisten de autoridad.
P-T Stoll: GLG working paper on Global Public Goods
noviembre 14, 2011
I am proud to announce the publication of the third Working Paper of the Global Legal Goods project. It is a contribution by Prof. Dr. Peter-Tobias Stoll on «Global Public Goods – Some considerations on Actors, Structures and Institutions.» This paper stems from a previous publication by the author, which has been slightly revised. Here is the abstract:
Abstract
There is a growing demand to provision of public goods at global level. In part this is a result of globalization, which renders it increasingly difficult to make such goods available within a national framework. The availability of public goods is put further into question by tendencies of privatization and by sovereign claims over certain resources. The growing global demand for public goods can hardly be met by traditional means of international cooperation, including international organizations. Instead, it requires making use of commerce and the world trading system as well as of the potential contributions of private actors. While a number of examples show, that the provision of public goods may be achieved in this way, doubts arise in view of governance, e.g. the ability of the international system to properly appreciate demand and react to it accordingly. It is put forward, that the current system of international organizations and regimes is one of sectoral divide, whereas most issues concerning global public goods require a cross sectoral approach. While states, rather than advocating the common interest, are likely to act as some sort of stakeholders at global level, the involvement of individual beneficiaries and potential contributors of public goods and NGOs is crucial.
Una nota para los lectores en castellano: trataremos de traducir al castellano los trabajos en inglés del proyecto sobre bienes jurídicos globales, pero no siempre será posible, por falta de medios. En todo caso, los mantendré informados cada vez que hagamos una traducción. Los trabajos de la conferencia sobre protección de bienes jurídicos globales de la semana próxima estarán todos en castellano, incluyendo la conferencia de la profesora Anne Peters.
Corporate Human Rights Obligations and International Investment Law
noviembre 9, 2011
Jernej Letnar Černič has published ‘Corporate Human Rights Obligations and International Investment Law’, Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional (2010), available online here.
Here is the abstract:
Globalisation has blurred the artificial borders that exist between economies and societies around the world. The activities of corporations in this globalised environment have often served as the catalyst for human rights violations; due to the lack of institutional protection, some corporations are able to exploit regulatory lacunae and the lack of human rights protection. It appears that the paradigmatic change demands an equal emphasis of rights and obligations of corporations. This article discusses and critically analyses corporate human rights obligations and the lack thereof under stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts. First, stabilization clauses in foreign investment agreements are examined in relation to corporate obligations and responsibility for fundamental human rights. In doing so the substantive and procedural dimension of stabilization clauses is analysed. Second, using the concrete examples of the Mineral Development Agreement between Mittal Steel and the Government of Liberia Mittal Steel Agreement and of the Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan Pipeline Project as case studies, this article considers an application of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts in relation to the fundamental human rights obligation of states and of corporations. Third, a proposal for reform in the form of a fundamental human rights clause is introduced. To be clear, the argument here is that the fundamental human rights obligations of investors, particularly of corporations, must be included in foreign investment agreements.
Y el resumen en castellano:
La globalización permeó las fronteras artificiales existentes entre la economía y la sociedad alrededor del mundo. Las actividades empresariales en este ambiente globalizado ha servido como catalizador de las violaciones de derechos humanos como consecuencia de la ausencia de la protección institucional algunas empresas han explotado los vacíos jurídicos y la falta de protección de los derechos humanos. Al respecto, para lograr un cambio paradigmático requiere un fuerte énfasis en los derechos y las obligaciones de las empresas. Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico de las obligaciones de las empresas en material de derechos humanos frente a la falta de cláusulas de estabilización en los contratos de inversión extranjera. En primer lugar, estas cláusulas son examinadas en relación con la responsabilidad en las obligaciones corporativas con relación a los derechos humanos fundamentales. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se analizan las dimensiones sustantivas y procesales de las cláusulas de estabilización. En segundo lugar, apelando a los ejemplos concretos del Acuerdo para el desarrollo de la Minería entre Mittal Steel y el Gobierno de Liberia, así como el proyecto del Oleoducto de Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan como casos de análisis, este artículo busca la aplicación de las cláusulas de estabilidad en las inversiones extranjeras con relación a la protección de los derechos humanos por parte de los Estados y de las empresas. En tercer lugar, se propone una modificación a la forma como se introduce la cláusula relativa a los derechos humanos. En este orden de ideas, los derechos humanos de los inversionistas, específicamente de las empresas, deben ser incluidos en los acuerdos de inversión extranjera.
Postdoctoral Researcher in Law at the University of Oslo
noviembre 8, 2011
A three year position as a postdoctoral researcher in the field of international human rights is available at the University of Oslo, Department of Public and International Law. Here is the information. Good luck!
aquiescencia 