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).
Summer Programme of the Venice Academy of Human Rights
abril 1, 2013
The Venice Academy of Human Rights is accepting applications until 5 May 2013 for its summer programme (July 8-19). The theme of the summer programme is «Obligations of States» and Jeremy Waldron (NYU and Oxford) will teach the general course. And, of course, it is in Venice!
¿A dónde va América Latina en el
Derecho Económico Internacional?
28 y 29 de octubre de 2013
Lima, Perú
Convocatoria para Artículos
La Red Latinoamericana de Derecho Económico Internacional (RED LAT-DEI), la Universidad de Chile y la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú, con el apoyo de la Society of International Economic Law, la Sociedad Latinoamericana para el Derecho Internacional, y el Word Trade Institute de la Universidad de Berna, convocan a la presentación de artículos para la Segunda Conferencia Bianual de la RED LAT-DEI “¿A Dónde Va América Latina en el Derecho Económico Internacional?” A desarrollarse el 28 y 29 de octubre de 2013, en Lima, Perú.
PLAZO: 30 Mayo de 2013
COMUNICACIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS: 30 Junio de 2013
ENTREGA PAPERS: 15 Septiembre de 2013
Entre el 28 y el 29 de octubre de 2013 tendrá lugar la Segunda Conferencia Bianual de la Red Latinoamericana de Derecho Económico Internacional en conjunto con la Universidad de Chile y la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú, en Lima, Perú. La conferencia cuenta con el apoyo de la Society of International Economic Law, la Sociedad Latinoamericana para el Derecho Internacional (www.lasil-sladi.org), y el Word Trade Institute de la Universidad de Berna.
El tema de la conferencia será: “¿A dónde va América Latina en el Derecho Económico Internacional?” Les invitamos a reunirse con reconocidos expertos en derecho económico internacional de diferentes partes del mundo para discutir sobre el estado y futuro de esta área del derecho en nuestra región. Contaremos con la participación de representantes de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, organizaciones económicas y de integración Latinoamericana, entre otros.
La primera conferencia bianual tuvo lugar en la Universidad Externado de Colombia, el 8 y 9 de septiembre de 2011. En la conferencia participaron algunos de los más importantes expertos en derecho internacional económico de la región, entre ellos miembros del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión del MERCOSUR, jueces del Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina y del Órgano de Apelación de la OMC, más de 115 académicos, abogados y representantes de organizaciones internacionales. Las ponencias y artículos entregados en la conferencia han sido editados por los co-directores de la Red y el Departamento de Derecho Económico de la Universidad Externado de Colombia, y publicados en un libro que se encuentra ya disponible al público. La conferencia contará con mesas individuales y conferencias magistrales en formato de plenaria. Cada mesa tendrá un moderador y, según el caso, comentaristas.
Las propuestas para mesas o presentaciones individuales podrán presentarse en Portugués o Español en los siguientes tópicos, u otros relacionados con el tema de la Conferencia:
– derecho económico internacional (comercio, inversión, derecho financiero o monetario) en Latinoamérica o con un enfoque sobre Latinoamérica y sus vínculos con otras regiones;
– las instituciones de integración en Latinoamérica, su fragmentación y/o coherencia con otras instituciones globales;
– teoría jurídica de las relaciones económicas internacionales.
Las propuestas enviadas por estudiantes de Maestría o pregrado podrán ser elegibles como posters o sesiones.
Las propuestas deben ser entregadas antes del 30 mayo de 2013.
Para postular, solicitamos a los interesados enviar por correo electrónico un resumen de no más de 300 palabras con el tema a tratar en su ponencia, nombre, afiliación y breve biografía o CV. En caso de ser escogida, un borrador avanzado del artículo que desarrolla la propuesta debe entregarse antes del 15 de septiembre de 2013.
Por favor, indicar si el trabajo ha sido publicado, es un documento de trabajo o es inédito. Con la presentación de la propuesta se acepta que el artículo que entregará podrá ser publicado y reproducido en el segundo libro de memorias de la misma, por la institución que defina la Red LAT-DEI. Para efectos de la publicación, el artículo será de entre 20 y 30 paginas máximo.
La postulación de mesas debe contar con un título y resumen de la mesa, conferencistas comprometidos, información sobre ellos (tal como su afiliación) y los títulos y resúmenes de las presentaciones individuales. Los conferencistas deben estar de acuerdo con el título de su charla y confirmar su interés y disposición en participar.
Preferiblemente las mesas deben representar (si el tema lo requiere) la diversidad de opiniones existentes y países.
Les pedimos enviar las propuestas vía e-mail a jmalvarez@etb.net.co
Los resultados serán anunciados en Junio de 2013. Las propuestas serán leídas por dos árbitros o miembros del comité organizador, conformado por los directores de la Red, representantes de las universidades organizadoras y el Comité Ejecutivo de la Red.
SIDIBlog
abril 1, 2013
SIDIBlog es el nuevo blog de la Sociedad Italiana de Derecho Internacional. Bienvenido.
Hay plazo hasta el 1 de mayo para presentar propuestas para esta interesante conferencia sobre interpretación en el derecho internacional. Aquí está el ‘call for papers’:
Interpretation in International Law
University of Cambridge
August 27, 2013
CALL FOR PAPERS
The relevance of interpretation to the academic study and professional practice of international law is inescapable. Yet interpretation in international law has not traditionally been examined as a distinct field. Given that international law is constituted, in practical terms, by acts of interpretation, there is a need for greater methodological awareness of interpretive theory and practice in international law.
The ‘Interpretation in International Law’ conference at the University of Cambridge in August 2013 aims to attract submissions focusing on the divergent processes of interpretation that exist in international law, whether these be differentiated linguistically, culturally, politically or socially. Submissions will be encouraged that deal with the interpretation process per se, as well as the place of interpretive process within the larger scheme of international law (such as divergent interpretations of concrete provisions, or the impact of interpretation on the sources of international law). The conference welcomes submissions from both philosophical and practical perspectives ensuring exposure of ideas and concepts that may otherwise have been confined to their own sub-fields.
The following speakers will give keynote presentations:
- Sir David Baragwanath (President, Special Tribunal for Lebanon)
- Professor Andrea Bianchi (The Graduate Institute, Geneva)
- Dr Ingo Venzke (University of Amsterdam)
A wide variety of proposals are welcomed. Proposed panels include:
- Interpretation and Legal Doctrine: this panel will highlight the doctrinal exposition of particular contested legal standards – for example, “fair and equitable treatment” and “cruel and unusual punishment” – as well as the methodologies behind such expositions in a range of international and regional courts and tribunals.
- Interpretation and the Sources of International Law: this panel will focus on how interpretive practice interacts with, and institutes hierarchies amongst, the sources of international law. Where can the line be drawn between “dynamic” and “progressive” interpretive practice and law-making? Submissions dealing with treaty interpretation and the place of interpretation in the formation of custom are encouraged.
- Interpretation and the Interpreters: this panel will examine how disparate interpretations of international law are granted the imprimatur by functionally specialized interpretive communities who use international law as a professional vocabulary (for example, judges, diplomats, legal advisers, arbitrators and regulators). To what extent is the interpretation of international law a competition for “semantic authority” (Ingo Venzke)?
- Interpretation and the International Legal Order: this panel will consider the extent to which one’s interpretive posture depends on the vision of the international legal order that one advocates, such as constitutionalism or global administrative law. How are particular values, such as dignity and comity, foregrounded or neglected in the interpretive process? Do interpretive practices have the potential to bridge conceptual divides between public and private international law?
- Interpretation and Cultural Contingency: James Crawford has recently stated that international lawyers must possess a “technique of plurilingual interpretation”. This panel will provide a forum for the exposition of culturally distinct interpretive practices, as well as a consideration of the benefits and drawbacks of divergent interpretations stemming from cultural differences.
- Interpretation and Indeterminacy: this panel focuses on interpretation in light of the critical challenge to international law. How is interpretive practice affected by the allegation that apolitical rules are impossible and that values used to justify such rules are subjective? Given the fragmentation of international law, is an interpretive lingua franca attainable or is interpretive pluralism inevitable?
Abstract submissions must be between 300-500 words in length and should be accompanied by a short resume. Please submit your documents to cambridgeinterpretation@gmail.com. Any queries may be directed to the conference conveners, Daniel Peat (dcp31@cam.ac.uk) and Matthew Windsor (mrw48@cam.ac.uk).
The closing date for submissions is 1 May 2013. We will notify successful applicants by late May 2013, who must submit their papers by early August 2013. Conference papers should be between 6,000 and 10,000 words. Selected submissions will be considered for publication in an edited volume on the conference theme.
Advisory Opinions and Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
marzo 26, 2013
En octubre de 2010 presenté esta ponencia en una excelente conferencia que organizaron Harry Scheiber y Jin-Huyn Paik y el Institute for the Law of Sea en la sede del Tribunal Internacional para el Derecho del Mar. Pronto saldrá publicada, con los pocos cambios que hice a principios de 2011, en Harry N. Scheiber and Jin-Hyun Paik (eds.), Regions, Institutions and Law of the Sea (2013). Aquí les dejo el vínculo de SSRN donde pueden descargar el texto de marzo de 2011, al menos hasta que el libro esté en las librerías. Este es el abstract:
Following an introduction to the advisory jurisdiction of the Tribunal, this chapter discusses crucial aspects of the advisory function of the Seabed Disputes Chamber. It will of course consider the jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion and the issues of admissibility related to the opinion delivered by the Seabed Disputes Chamber on the Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the International Seabed Area. The discussion, however, will not touch upon the substantive legal questions asked to the Chamber in this occasion, but deal only with procedural issues. Moreover, it will attempt to go beyond this specific case to present a general analysis of the key issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, together with some questions of procedure, that should be taken into account in order to arrive to an authoritative advisory opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber and, eventually, of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Vacante: Human Rights Officer (legal advisor) en la OACDH
marzo 26, 2013
Hasta el 29 de marzo hay tiempo para presentar candidaturas para entrar en el roster como Human Rights Officer (Human Rights Legal Advisor) en la OFICINA ALTO COMISIONADO DERECHOS HUMANOS (el UN-OACDH). Aquí está la información.
