Home

La conferencia del Profesor Philippe Sands (University College London) en #ESIL2015 en Oslo puede verse completa en:

http://www.jus.uio.no/pluricourts/english/news-and-events/events/2015/esil-2015-en/video-and-streaming/final-lecture.html

No se la pierdan. Es magnífica.

ESIL conferences are organised annually since the last general meeting at Vienna. The next ESIL annual conference on ‘The Judicialization of International Law – A mixed blessing?’ will be held on 10-12 September 2015 at the University of Oslo. The Call for Agora Proposals and Papers and Call for Posters are open until 31 January 2015.

SLADI

Interest Group: LADIL/SLADI

Latin American Society of International Law

International Courts and Tribunals:

Objectives

The new LASIL Interest Group on International Courts and Tribunals was established at the suggestion of Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida (Getulio Vargas Foundation Law School, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).

The background for the interest group is the increasing number of international courts and tribunals in different levels of governance (universal, multilateral, regional, and sub-regional) and Latin America’s active participation and contribution to the development of international law through international adjudication.

Historically resistant to any kind of external interference, Latin American states have tended toward the principles of national sovereignty, non-intervention, and peaceful settlement of disputes, which are deeply embedded in their political and juridical cultures. The universal presence of Latin American states at the 1907 Second Hague Peace Conference and their contribution to the work and outcome of the conference are well known: they encouraged the recourse to arbitration and non-use of force, the principle of juridical equality of states, the strengthening of international jurisdiction, and the direct access of individuals to international justice.

The old debate regarding Latin American international law also demonstrates the region’s willingness to influence norms development in the field of international law. Concretely, Latin Americans have advanced recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and the future International Court of Justice. The referred formula, which was maintained in the present Statute of the ICJ, contributed to attracting the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the PCIJ by a total of 45 states and was firmly supported by Latin American states.

It followed that after the Second World War several international organizations were created in Latin America, such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Central American Integration System (SICA), the Andean Community (CAN), the Common Market of South America (Mercosur), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and more recently, the Pacific Alliance. Most of these organizations developed their own dispute settlement mechanisms, enhancing the region’s tradition of peaceful settlement of disputes. The same rule applies to the UN, under the auspices of which Latin American states have been strongly active. Most of the cases submitted to the International Court of Justice concern maritime and territorial disputes.

In this context, the Interest Group on International Courts and Tribunals will foster general theoretical and practical discussions regarding the legal aspects of international courts and tribunals among scholars and practitioners. It also deals with their role in the development of international law and the necessary dialogue and cooperation between different courts and tribunals, as well as with national courts.

Secondly, another relevant topic of the Interest Group concerns Latin American participation and contribution to international courts and tribunals. The activities of the Group intend to cover the Latin American cases submitted before the International Court of Justice, the Arbitration Tribunals, the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the Andean Community, the Central American Court of Justice, and the Mercosur Dispute Settlement System. The goal is to evaluate the Latin American contribution to the development of international law through the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

The objectives of the Interest Group will be pursued by a network of scholars and practicing lawyers who share information and reflections on these topics. In particular, the group will stimulate academic debate through the organization of conferences, meetings, and the setting up of research projects and joint publications.

If you are interested in becoming a member of this interest group, please contact Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida (paula.almeida@fgv.br).

Chair: Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida

Co-chair: Eric Tremolada

The Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order (PluriCourts, University of Oslo) offers three positions as postdoctoral researcher in international criminal law, international environmental law and international investment tribunals. The information is here. Good luck!

El viernes pasado discutimos en nuestro seminario de derecho internacional de los viernes en la UAM el artículo de Armin von Bogdandy e Ingo Venzke “In Whose Name?”, recientemente publicado en la [EJIL (2012) Vol. 23 No. 1, 7-41]. Es un trabajo muy rico en ideas y referencias, pero es importante sobre todo porque pone de manifiesto una verdad obvia y los problemas de justificación que trae aparejados: los tribunales internacionales “deciden en el nombre de los estados como sujetos del orden jurídico internacional”. Los autores afirman, con razón, que esta constatación es insatisfactoria desde el punto de vista de los principios democráticos de justificación de la autoridad pública que ejercen los tribunales internacionales y consideran insalvable la idea de que el punto de partida para su justificación democrática son los individuos cuyas libertades afectan tales decisiones.

Los autores proponen estrategias procesales y sustantivas para responder a los problemas de legitimación democrática de las decisiones de los tribunales internacionales. En definitiva, para ellos, la crítica y la tarea de justificación democrática de los tribunales internacionales debería estar guiada en la idea de ciudadanía transnacional o incluso cosmopolita. Esta visión de raíces kanteanas, que a mí me resulta plausible como objetivo, atrajo fuertes críticas por parte de algunos colegas, extensivas a todo el proyecto de justificación democrática de los tribunales internacionales, fundadas en ideas marxistas sobre la utilización de una falsa ciudadanía transnacional o cosmopolita para justificar determinadas agendas políticas (por cierto, sobre marxismo y derecho internacional recomiendo el buen libro editado por Susan Marks: International law on the left: re-examining Marxist legacies).

Quizá una cuestión que podría discutirse a partir de las afirmaciones generales de este artículo es si en verdad todos los tribunales internacionales deciden en nombre de los estados. ¿Se puede incluir también a los tribunales internacionales de derechos humanos? En el seminario hubo bastante discrepancia sobre este tema, que merece un estudio autónomo sobre las base de las decisiones de cada tribunal.

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: