2010 SIEL/CUP Prize for an Essay in International Economic Law
febrero 22, 2010
Espero que esta información pueda ser aprovechada por los lectores jóvenes de aquiescencia:
A prize has been established by the Society of International Economic Law and Cambridge University Press for the best essay submitted on any topic in any field of international economic law.
The competition is open to all current undergraduate and graduate students and those who have graduated no earlier than five years before the submission deadline. Members of the SIEL Executive Council may not submit entries. The essay may not have been previously published.
The prize consists of £200, as well as £300 of Cambridge University Press book vouchers and a three year subscription to the World Trade Review. The winning essay will be submitted to the World Trade Review for publication.
The deadline for submission is 30 September 2010
For terms and conditions please see www.sielnet.org/essayprize
Estrategias contra la pena capital en el horizonte de 2015/Strategies to End or Abolish the Death Penalty by 2015
febrero 16, 2010
A principios de diciembre de 2009 participé como moderador de una mesa sobre “Estrategias contra la pena capital en el horizonte de 2015” en el contexto del Coloquio Internacional por la Abolición Universal de la Pena Capital, que el Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales organizó junto con el Instituto de Derecho Penal Europeo e Internacional de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Fue una discusión interesante, especialmente por la distinta aproximación de los profesores William Schabas y Peter Hodgkinson, y también por las preguntas y opiniones de los asistentes, entre los que se encontraba, por ejemplo, el Profesor Nigel Rodley. Mi colega la Dra. Jessica Almqvist participó como relatora y ha escrito un resumen estupendo, algunos de cuyos párrafos, con su permiso, quiero compartir con los lectores de aquiescencia. El texto está en inglés, pero si hubiere una traducción pronta, trataré de publicarla también.
Strategies to End or Abolish the Death Penalty by 2015
Rapporteur: Jessica Almqvist
Two radically different strategies of how to end or abolish the death penalty (DP) were discussed. The main contributors to the discussion were William Schabas, Peter Hodgkinson and Victor Moreno (speakers). Carlos Espósito presided and moderated the session.
In what follows is a summary of what the different strategies amount to and how they differ from one another.
“Keep on doing what we are doing”
The first strategy that was discussed is more ‘optimistic’ and dominates in the public international realm. It emphasizes the existence of an international trend to abolish or end the DP. For example, if Ireland were now to consider the possibility of reintroducing the death penalty, which it abolished by way of a constitutional referendum in the 50s, it would be expelled from the European Union and the Council of Europe. It would be considered as an outcast. Indeed, Ireland, together with many other countries in Europe and beyond, does not revisit the old arguments about the death penalty anymore. In fact, few, if any, countries that have once abolished the death penalty reintroduce it. The Philippines is the exception that proves the rule.
In general, there is considerable statistical evidence demonstrating the existence of an international trend towards the universal abolition of the DP. The “war on terror” did not affect this trend. With the exception of Belarus, Europe is a “DP free zone”. Leaving Egypt, Libya, Sudan and Somalia aside, Africa is next to a “DP free zone”, too. Last year, there was only one reported execution in the whole of Africa. Furthermore, in the Americas, with the exception of the US, only one execution has taken place in the last five years. In the Iberoamerican region, Guatemala and Cuba are the only countries that keep the DP. The persistence of the death penalty is mainly an Asian phenomenon.
The international trend can be assessed in different ways. It is possible to distinguish between countries that are (1) pure abolitionists (100 countries); (2) abolitionists with respect to ‘ordinary crimes’ (less than ten now); and (3) de facto abolitionists (46 countries, including countries from the Maghreb region such as Morocco and Algeria). In fact, the number of countries that falls within the third category increases every year. However, we also observe a general decline in the use of the death penalty among countries which formally allow it (such as, Iran and Saudi Arabia). And, countries, such as Egypt and Singapore, do not practice what they preach.
This international trend indicates that there is no need to revise the strategy currently used, but rather “keep on doing what we are already doing”. In short, it consists of letting the increasing number of ratification of relevant international treaties, and the increasing number of countries that have ended or abolish the DP, to speak for themselves.
The need for a holistic strategy
The second strategy is more ‘pessimistic’. It insists on the need for caution towards the affirmation that we are making real progress. Those who are supporting this position stress that we are still far from having succeeded in achieving the objective of ending or abolishing the DP in all countries.
Their strategy stress the need engage in a discussion with countries that still keep the DP. In particular, it is essential that we take seriously the fact that there are still several countries which are defending the DP although they do so for very different reasons. However, their particular reasons must be taken into account and influence our selection of arguments when engaging in a discussion with them.
For example, some countries in the Caribbean, such as Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica, seem to keep the DP only to manifest their independence and control in relation to their colonial masters. Other countries, in contrast, seek to invoke religious or moral arguments. For example, the DP is often thought of as helping the families of the crime victims. We could show that this assumption is misguided. Contrary to what many believe, the DP does not help families of homicide victims to get closure. In this context, it may be useful to discuss in more detail the availability of different kinds of restoration models. Few countries that practice the DP have considered other methods of helping these families, such as, for example, making them part of the judicial process.
When countries do decide to abolish the DP, ‘new’ issues and concerns arise for them. A sound strategy cannot ignore, but must be attentive to these realities. Each of these realities requires international engagement. For example, in this context, is important not to ignore the uncomfortable question as to whether the alternative of life-in-prison without parole is actually a more humane form of punishment. Besides, in poor countries, there is a great risk of death while in prison because of the absence of food or hygiene. From this standpoint, a strategy of abolishing the DP must necessarily include a consideration of alternative forms of punishment for countries that are considering abolishing the DP.
Additionally, we cannot simply assume that the abolition of the DP means a more general improvement of the legal infrastructures and services of a country. In order to make progress, it is essential that also these infrastructures and services improve. A quest for a more general improvement of the conditions of offenders is also true for those countries which continue to use the DP. If we are unable to convince these countries about the need to end or abolish the DP we must still work with them in order to improve the conditions for those who are on death-row as well as their families (for example, by encouraging legal interventions and psychiatric assistance).
Seis nuevos puestos de letrados para jueces de la CIJ
febrero 12, 2010
¡Qué buena oportunidad para un iusinternacionalista joven! La Corte Internacional de Justicia anuncia seis nuevos puestos para letrados adscritos a sus jueces. Esta es la información específica:
Deadline for applications : 6 April 2010
Post title : Law Clerk to Judges of the Court (Associate Legal Officer) (6 positions)
Grade : P-2
Reference : 2010-ICJ-LEG-01
Duty Station : International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands
Organizational Unit : Department of Legal Matters
Indicative minimum net annual remuneration (including post adjustment) :
At single rate: €51,525
At dependency rate: €54,933
Length of Appointment: Two years fixed-term, renewable once for a second two-year period
Más información en esta página de la CIJ. Buena suerte.
Shrinking Universal Jurisdiction
febrero 10, 2010
This is the Guest Editorial that I wrote for the ESIL Newsletter of 1 February 2010.
Shrinking Universal Jurisdiction
The Pinochet case changed our perceptions of international law and the important role of national judges in its development. However, with the entry into force on 5 November 2009 of the new Spanish law governing the principle of universal jurisdiction, such a case would most probably not have been possible today.
The reform, which may be read as part of a tendency to restrict universal jurisdiction, was preceded by a handful of criminal investigations carried out by the Audiencia Nacional following a number of complaints against high-ranking officials of China, the USA and Israel. The media reported that political pressure by foreign nations to change the law of universal jurisdiction may have triggered the amendment. The Government was clearly uncomfortable with the way in which the judiciary had come to apply universal jurisdiction. The amendment was announced by the Government as a fait accompli, to the surprise of the legal community. The reform, however, had the full support of the opposition and was voted for by an overwhelming majority of the members of the Congress and the Senate.
As an advocate of a qualified, rather than an absolute, principle of universal jurisdiction, I believe that it was true that the previous law needed more than just a tweaking to make it more effective and legitimate, even for the limited purpose of maintaining the symbolic justice effect that it had achieved over the years. However, in my view, the new provision contains some important deficiencies. It establishes conditions that may be considered ambiguous or even contrary to the fundamental idea of universal jurisdiction, which is based only on the universal agreement that certain heinous crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, must not go unpunished. The new provision – Article 23.4 of the Organic Law 6/1985, as amended by Organic Law 1/2009 – introduces three non-accumulative requirements for the exercise of universal jurisdiction by Spanish judges. The first stipulates that the persons presumably responsible for the crimes be present on Spanish territory. Alternatively, the victims must be Spanish nationals. Or, finally, there must be another relevant connection with Spain. I believe that the first requirement is acceptable and, given the difficulties in apprehending the alleged perpetrators of these crimes, even reasonable. The second, however, is simply flawed. Indeed, the nationality of the victim is another basis of jurisdiction, i.e. the passive nationality principle, and is totally inadequate as a prerequisite for the exercise of universal jurisdiction. As for the third, it seems too vague in a sphere of judicial practice where national judges are not particularly prone to exercise restraint. It should be noted, however, that the new legislation maintains full respect for the independence of judges, and does not provide for a political control of the judicial process. The law also rightly recognizes a subsidiarity principle, which implies that a case should be provisionally dismissed if a foreign national tribunal with jurisdiction or an international tribunal has already initiated proceedings to investigate and effectively prosecute the same crimes. The recognition of the direct relevance of this principle in the field of universal jurisdiction is connected to the rather indeterminate provision on subsidiarity as contained in the law governing the cooperation with the ICC (Article 7, Organic Law 18/2003).
Even after the amendment, Spanish universal jurisdiction still covers important ground, and has in fact been improved, with the crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity now being explicit grounds for its operation. On the other hand, the limiting effects of the new constraints have already been felt. For instance, the Audiencia Nacional recently refused to investigate alleged crimes against humanity by Moroccan authorities in the case of Mrs. Aminetu Haidar. Regarding possible retroactive effects of the amendment, it seems that the ongoing cases at the Audiencia Nacional have not been affected. However, in principle, in the criminal justice context, the law more favorable to the person being investigated or prosecuted should in any case be applied.
A global treaty on universal jurisdiction might be a good idea but it seems to be a very difficult task. A European Union solution would perhaps be more feasible. Indeed, the EU could try to either pass legislation adopting minimum rules on universal jurisdiction within the framework of the Lisbon Treaty or, if this strategy proves inappropriate, negotiate a specific agreement harmonizing the relevant laws of the member states. This approach would bring a much higher degree of legitimacy to the exercise of universal jurisdiction vis à vis the rest of the world. Perhaps there is still time for the Spanish EU Presidency to promote the idea?
Araceli Mangas Martín (Dir.), Luis Norberto González Alonso (Coord.), Manuel López Escudero, José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares y José Manuel Sobrino Heredia, autores de la obra colectiva «CARTA DE LOS DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES DE LA UNION EUROEPA. COMENTARIO ARTICULO POR ARTICULO», publicada en diciembre de 2008 por la editorial de la Fundacion del BBVA, informan que todo el contenido del libro está ahora disponible de forma gratuita en esta dirección. Gracias a los autores y a la editorial.
Revista «e» de Estudios Internacionales (REEI)
febrero 1, 2010
Los profesores Luis Hinojosa Martínez y Manuel López Escudero, catedráticos de derecho internacional de la Universidad de Granada, son los directores de esta conferencia sobre el derecho internacional de los mercados financieros, que tendrá lugar en Granada el 22 y 23 de abril de 2010. La conferencia es una iniciativa del Grupo de interés en Derecho Internacional Económico de la European Society of International Law y el Departamento de Derecho Internacional Público de la Universidad de Granada. Es un programa excelente sobre uno de los grandes temas de actualidad de dimensión nacional, europea y global. Además, los organizadores han tenido la delicadeza y buen gusto de programar una visita a la Alhambra como conclusión de la conferencia. Ya saben, hagan hueco en las agendas. Aquí está el programa y los datos para registrarse, que copio a continuación.
The International Law of Financial Markets: Governance, Stability and Security
THURSDAY, 22nd April
16:00: Opening Speeches
Inaugural Conference: The Reform of the International Financial Architecture after the Global Crisis
Professor Mario GIOVANOLI. Former General Counsel of the Bank for International Settlements, MOCOMILA, Switzerland.
18:00 First Round Table: The New Governance of the International Monetary and Financial System
Chair: Professor HÉLÈNE RUIZ FABRI, Professor of International Law, President, ESIL
Panel:
a) The G-20 at the Heart of International Monetary System
Professor Kern ALEXANDER, Queen Mary University of London and Cambridge Centre for Financial Analysis and Policy
b) The Role of the IMF and the need for technical assistance
Professor Jean Marc SOREL, Université Paris I, Directeur du CERDIN
c) The Financial Stability Board and the International Standard-Setting Bodies
Diego DEVOS, General Counsel, Bank for International Settlements, Switzerland
21:00 Dinner
FRIDAY, 23rd April
9:30 Second Round Table: The International Law Regulation of Financial Services
Chair: Professor GIL CARLOS RODRÍGUEZ IGLESIAS, Complutense University of Madrid, former President of the European Court of Justice.
Panel:
a) The Place of GATS in the New Financial Architecture
Juan MARCHETTI, WTO Counsellor, Trade in Services Division
b) European Monetary Union and Single Financial Area
Dr. Antonio SÁINZ DE VICUÑA BARROSO, General Counsel of the European Central Bank (to be confirmed)
c) The New System of Financial Supervision in the EU
Professor Jean-Victor LOUIS, Professor Emeritus, Université Libre de Bruxelles, former General Counsel, Bank of Belgium.
11:15 Coffee Break
11:30 Third Round Table: International Finance and Security
Chair: Professor Thomas COTTIER. Managing Director of the World Trade Institute and Professor of European and International Economic Law at the University of Bern.
Panel:
a) Legal initiatives against money laundering and terrorism financing
Professor Valsamis MITSILEGAS, Queen May University of London
b) Is it possible for EU Law to ensure that cross-border entities comply with financial services regulations?
Raúl SAUGAR ÁLVAREZ, Deputy Director, Regulation and Financial Policy,
Spanish Ministry of Economy
c) The International Regulation on Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Eva HÜPKES, Adviser on Regulatory Policy and Cooperation, Financial Stability Board.
13:30 Closing Remarks
Friday Afternoon: Optional visit to Alhambra
Directors:
Luis M. Hinojosa Martínez. Professor of International Law and Director of the Department of Public International Law, Granada University
Manuel López Escudero. Professor of International Law, Granada University
Registration fees: ESIL Members: €120 (Including Thursday’s dinner and coffee breaks) or €150 (Including Thursday’s dinner, coffee breaks and visit to Alhambra)
Non-ESIL Members: €145 (Including Thursday’s dinner and coffee breaks) or €175 (Including Thursday’s dinner, coffee breaks and visit to Alhambra)
Accompanying spouse/partner; €70 Thursday’s dinner / €30 Visit to Alhambra
Please, note that registration deadline in any option that includes visit to Alhambra is 22nd of March 2010. Otherwise, registration deadline is 15th April 2010. For registration details, please visit www.dipri.org/iel-esil
Simon Lester sobre la controversia OMC relativa al comercio de productos derivados de la foca
enero 21, 2010
Hace algunos meses publicamos un post donde Rosa Fernández Egea escribió sobre el Reglamento (CE) Nº 1007/2009 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de las CE, adoptado el 16 de septiembre de 2009, sobre el comercio de productos derivados de la foca. Como se anunciaba en el post, la adopción del Reglamento ha supuesto la apertura de consultas ante la OMC iniciadas por Canadá contra las Comunidades Europeas (WTO/DS400). Esta petición de consultas fue inmediatamente seguida de otra por parte de Noruega sobre el mismo tema (WTO/DS401). A ambas consultas se ha sumado Islandia.
En la reclamación presentada por Canadá, el 2 de noviembre de 2009, se alega que las medidas contenidas en el Reglamento «son incompatibles con las obligaciones que corresponden a las Comunidades Europeas en virtud de los párrafos 1 y 2 del artículo 2 del Acuerdo OTC; el párrafo 1 del artículo I, el párrafo 4 del artículo III y el párrafo 1 del artículo XI del GATT de 1994, y el párrafo 2 del artículo 4 del Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura.
Las cuestiones jurídicas básicas que se plantean en este controversia son analizadas en el ASIL Insight que Simon Lester, conocido por sus posts en el IELP blog, ha publicado recientemente sobre el tema y que está disponible aquí. La nota muestra en pocas palabras y de manera clara la complejidad de los temas jurídicos planteados y la incertidumbre sobre cómo podrían resolverse las cuestiones relativas a la no discriminación y necesidad de la medida, centrales en esta controversia. Además, en su conclusión, Simon Lester plantea también problemas más generales, como la pregunta por los límites de la intervención de las reglas de la OMC en las políticas internas de los Estados miembros, la conexión entre derecho de la OMC y derecho internacional en este caso y la importancia de las posiciones políticas en la futura decisión del grupo especial. No se puede pedir más en tan poco espacio. Muy recomendable.
Esta puede ser una buena oportunidad para los internacionalistas con interés en los estudios de L&E.
Call for Papers
SPANISH ASSOCIATION OF LAW AND ECONOMICS
2010 Annual Conference AT THE UNIVERSITY AUTONOMA OF MADRID
The First Annual Conference of the Spanish Association of Law and Economics (Asociación Española de Derecho y Economía) will be held on July 1-2, at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
The Conference is inviting those interested in submitting a paper (in English or Spanish) to send electronically a short abstract (200 words) plus either a copy of the final paper (if already available) or an outline of a minimum of 2 pages to aede10@uam.es by 20 March 2010.
On the date indicated below, the Conference will announce the papers selected among the original works received on all topics related to Law and Economics. Subjects of special interest for the Conference, with particular emphasis on Spanish or European systems and institutions, are the following: Antitrust and Regulation – Bankruptcy Law – Behavioral Law and Economics – Contracts and Commercial Law – Securities and Financial Regulation- Comparative Law and Economics – Corporate Law and Corporate Governance – Tort Law and Compensation Systems- Criminal Law -Environmental Law – Experimental Law and Economics – Family Law, Gender, and Discrimination – Health Law –Property Law, including Intellectual Property and Innovation -International Law and Trade- Labor, Employment and Immigration – Litigation, Dispute Resolution and the Legal Process – Political economy of the Law – Public and Administrative Law -Taxation and Social Welfare.
For further information, please contact http://www.laweco.es/.
A selection of the papers presented at the Conference will be published in InDret (www.indret.com) following a regular submission and evaluation process.
Important dates:
1. Proposal’s submission deadline: March 20, 2010.
2. Communication of Acceptance: May 1, 2010
3. Early registration by: June 1, 2010
4. Final papers due by: June 15, 2010
AEDE Board Members:
Francisco Cabrillo (Universidad Complutense, President), Fernando Gómez Pomar (Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Vice-President), Rocío Albert (Universidad Complutense), and Pedro Moreira (SCA-Legal).
Organizing Committee:
Javier Díez Hochleitner (Dean of the School of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Lis Paula San Miguel (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), and Maribel Sáez Lacave (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
ASOCIACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE DERECHO Y ECONOMÍA
Conferencia Anual 2010
El primer congreso anual de la Asociación Española de Derecho y Economía se celebrará los días 1 y 2 de julio de 2010 en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, España.
La organización del Congreso invita a aquellos que deseen solicitar la presentación de un trabajo (en ingles o en español) a enviar de forma electrónica un abstract (200 palabras), junto con una copia del trabajo definitivo o, en su caso, una síntesis del mismo de al menos 2 páginas a la dirección de correo aede10@uam.es antes del 20 de marzo de 2010.
En la fecha que se indica más abajo, la organización del congreso anunciará los trabajos seleccionados, sobre cualquier tema relacionado con el Análisis Económico del Derecho. Las materias que son de especial interés para el congreso -con especial énfasis en los sistemas e instituciones europeas y españolas- son las siguientes:
Derecho de la competencia y de la regulación – Derecho concursal- Behavioral Law and Economics – Derecho de contratos y de los negocios– Mercados y regulación financiera- Análisis económico del Derecho comparado – Derecho de sociedades y gobierno corporativo- Accidentes, responsabilidad y sistemas de compensación- Derecho penal- Derecho del medio ambiente- Experimental Law and Economics – Derecho de familia, género y discriminación- Derecho sanitario– Propiedad y derechos reales, incluyendo propiedad intelectual e industrial- Derecho internacional y comercio internacional- Derecho del trabajo e inmigración – Derecho procesal, litigación, resolución de controversias – Economía política del Derecho- Derecho administrativo y constitucional- Derecho tributario y bienestar social.
Para ulterior información, por favor contacte http://www.lawecones/.
Una selección de los trabajos presentados en el congreso serán publicados en la revista electrónica InDret (www.indret.com). La publicación solo se llevará a cabo con el consentimiento del autor.
Fechas importantes:
1. Plazo final de presentación de solicitudes: 20 de marzo de 2010.
2. Comunicación de aceptaciones: 1 de mayo de 2010.
3. Apertura de la inscripción de participación: 1 de junio de 2010
4. Entrega de los trabajos definitivos aceptados: 15 de junio de 2010.
Miembros del consejo de AEDE:
Francisco Cabrillo (Universidad Complutense, Presidente), Fernando Gomez Pomar (Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Vice-Presidente), Rocío Albert (Universidad Complutense) y Pedro Moreira (SCA-Legal).
Comité organizador:
Javier Díez Hochleitner (Decano de la facultad de derecho, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Lis Paula San Miguel (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) y Maribel Sáez Lacave (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid).
Justicia transicional en Iberoamérica/3
enero 7, 2010
Gracias a Paola Andrea Acosta por su reseña de nuestro libro Justicia transicional en Iberoamérica y también a Gonzalo Ramírez Cleves por publicarla en el interesante blog Iureamicorum.
aquiescencia 