In “Gender and the Lost Private Side of International Law,” Karen Knop argued that “recuperating private international law as a lost side of international law can open up counter-disciplinary research on gender in the history of international law.”1 In this essay, I use Knop's argument to revisit our understanding of the sixteen century “School of Salamanca”2 and its importance for international legal history from a gender perspective. I focus on the practice of jurists and theologians associated with the School of Salamanca in assessing the validity of marriages of newly converted Indigenous peoples in Brazil (negros da terra), and later the validity of remarriages of Indigenous people and enslaved Africans (negros da Guiné) who had already been married in places from which they had been forcibly removed.3 To do this, these jurists and theologians engaged in private international law (or conflict of laws) reasoning. A key question involved determining what law governed each marriage—was it ius gentium, natural law, or canon law? Examining their arguments, I argue, offers an instance of Knop's insight that recuperating private international law allows us to redress the invisibility of women in the history of international law. In my case study, not only do we better understand “how power operates through international legal concepts and institutions”4 in the private sphere of the family in the colonies, but also, and crucially, how “private international law make[s] visible the effects of colonial . . . law on gender relations and national identity at home,”5 to borrow Knop's words.
卡伦-克诺普（Karen Knop）在《性别与国际法失落的私法》一文中指出，"将国际私法作为国际法失落的一面加以恢复，可以开启国际法史上关于性别问题的反学科研究 "1 。在本文中，我将利用克诺普的论点，从性别的角度重新审视我们对 16 世纪 "萨拉曼卡学派 "2 及其对国际法律史重要性的理解。我将重点放在与萨拉曼卡学派有关的法学家和神学家在评估巴西新皈依的土著人（negros da terra）婚姻的有效性，以及后来评估土著人和被奴役的非洲人（negros da Guiné）再婚的有效性方面的实践。一个关键问题是确定每桩婚姻受什么法律管辖--是万国法、自然法还是教会法？我认为，研究他们的论点为克诺普的见解提供了一个实例，即恢复国际私法使我们能够纠正妇女在国际法历史中的不可见性。在我的案例研究中，我们不仅能更好地理解 "权力如何通过国际法律概念和制度4 在殖民地家庭的私人领域中运作"，而且借用克诺普的话说，"国际私法如何使殖民地......法律对国内性别关系和民族身份的影响显而易见 "5。
{"title":"The Private as a Core Part of International Law: The School of Salamanca, Slavery, and Marriage (Sixteenth Century)","authors":"A. Martineau","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.55","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.55","url":null,"abstract":"In “Gender and the Lost Private Side of International Law,” Karen Knop argued that “recuperating private international law as a lost side of international law can open up counter-disciplinary research on gender in the history of international law.”1 In this essay, I use Knop's argument to revisit our understanding of the sixteen century “School of Salamanca”2 and its importance for international legal history from a gender perspective. I focus on the practice of jurists and theologians associated with the School of Salamanca in assessing the validity of marriages of newly converted Indigenous peoples in Brazil (negros da terra), and later the validity of remarriages of Indigenous people and enslaved Africans (negros da Guiné) who had already been married in places from which they had been forcibly removed.3 To do this, these jurists and theologians engaged in private international law (or conflict of laws) reasoning. A key question involved determining what law governed each marriage—was it ius gentium, natural law, or canon law? Examining their arguments, I argue, offers an instance of Knop's insight that recuperating private international law allows us to redress the invisibility of women in the history of international law. In my case study, not only do we better understand “how power operates through international legal concepts and institutions”4 in the private sphere of the family in the colonies, but also, and crucially, how “private international law make[s] visible the effects of colonial . . . law on gender relations and national identity at home,”5 to borrow Knop's words.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139529031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay takes up Karen Knop's challenge to reconstruct the oft-made distinction between private and public law by engaging private international law (PrIL) as a “lost side of international law.”1 To do so we interrogate the changing fortunes (literally) of women's private property rights in the long nineteenth century—a period characterized by the divestment and reinstatement of gendered rights in national law—focusing on the Nordics, Europe more broadly, and the Colonial world. Following Knop and other feminist legal scholars, and by engaging with questions of what Mariana Valverde calls “scale,”2 we bring women's property rights in conversation with international law. In doing so, we point to sites of engagement where the politico-economic structures of international law are lived, negotiated, reconfigured, and made real.3 We use scale to frame and inform our analysis bringing attention to how the “small” (micro) economics and politics of everyday life, women's labor, and gendered legal concerns, underpin and are an intrinsic part of the “large-scale” structures of international law. “All scales shifts,” Mariana Valverde notes, meaning that such “processes . . . br[ing] certain phenomena into focus that had previously been blurred or pushed to the background.”4 Recovering matters of women's history and everyday life, which, as Knop has argued are often “hiding in plain sight,” with a focus on women's property rights, brings to the fore the critical relationship between family/household, market, and the state, and the fundamental role international law has played in implementing a specific economic vision through the organization of gendered power relations.
{"title":"Gendering Public and Private International Law: Transversal Legal Histories of the State, Market, and the Family through Women's Private Property Rights","authors":"M. Mckenna, M. Arvidsson","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.53","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.53","url":null,"abstract":"This essay takes up Karen Knop's challenge to reconstruct the oft-made distinction between private and public law by engaging private international law (PrIL) as a “lost side of international law.”1 To do so we interrogate the changing fortunes (literally) of women's private property rights in the long nineteenth century—a period characterized by the divestment and reinstatement of gendered rights in national law—focusing on the Nordics, Europe more broadly, and the Colonial world. Following Knop and other feminist legal scholars, and by engaging with questions of what Mariana Valverde calls “scale,”2 we bring women's property rights in conversation with international law. In doing so, we point to sites of engagement where the politico-economic structures of international law are lived, negotiated, reconfigured, and made real.3 We use scale to frame and inform our analysis bringing attention to how the “small” (micro) economics and politics of everyday life, women's labor, and gendered legal concerns, underpin and are an intrinsic part of the “large-scale” structures of international law. “All scales shifts,” Mariana Valverde notes, meaning that such “processes . . . br[ing] certain phenomena into focus that had previously been blurred or pushed to the background.”4 Recovering matters of women's history and everyday life, which, as Knop has argued are often “hiding in plain sight,” with a focus on women's property rights, brings to the fore the critical relationship between family/household, market, and the state, and the fundamental role international law has played in implementing a specific economic vision through the organization of gendered power relations.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139529068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2021, the French government commissioned two reports on episodes of extreme violence involving France's past: the Algerian War and the Rwandan genocide. Both reports grapple with how “the past haunts the present and the future,”3 a theme that is central to Karen Knop's scholarly legacy. In both reports, legal, historical, and archival expertise are positioned to redraw and recast relations of France to Africa. We argue that the reports’ focus on the role of a particular class of experts (namely archivist and historians, rather than lawyers) reflects France's current approach to narrating historical injustice, emphasizing public memory of violent pasts, rather than legal responsibility of the French state.
{"title":"Lawyers, Archivists, and the Turn to Transparency in the French State","authors":"Ron Levi, Sophie Marois, Sara Dezalay","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.56","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.56","url":null,"abstract":"In 2021, the French government commissioned two reports on episodes of extreme violence involving France's past: the Algerian War and the Rwandan genocide. Both reports grapple with how “the past haunts the present and the future,”3 a theme that is central to Karen Knop's scholarly legacy. In both reports, legal, historical, and archival expertise are positioned to redraw and recast relations of France to Africa. We argue that the reports’ focus on the role of a particular class of experts (namely archivist and historians, rather than lawyers) reflects France's current approach to narrating historical injustice, emphasizing public memory of violent pasts, rather than legal responsibility of the French state.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139529663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This symposium explores the interrelation and juxtaposition of private and public registers in the logics and practices of private international law, public international law, and foreign relations law. It is inspired by the scholarly work of a brilliant scholar and much-missed friend: Karen Knop, Professor and Cecil A. Wright Chair at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (1960 – 2022). The symposium draws from and engages with Karen ’ s work in various ways. It also provides an opportunity to traverse scholarly ground covered extensively in the American Journal of International Law ( AJIL ), since its 1907 establishment, surrounding relations among private international law, public international law, and foreign relations law. The essay authors explore these perennial themes while making fresh use of the distinctive features of AJIL Unbound . As readers well know, AJIL Unbound provides for the online and open-access publication of short, original essays of international legal scholarship written in a readable style intended to be accessible to policy-makers, practitioners, transdisciplinary scholars, and students around the world. It seeks to broaden and diversify AJIL scholarly exchanges by introducing new interlocutors, insights, and modes of analysis. Karen was a critical force in the creation of AJIL Unbound . She was chair of the founding editorial committee of AJIL Unbound from its launch in 2014 until 2017, and a member of its editorial committee from 2017 until 2021. She was instrumental in devising and re fi ning the AJIL Unbound model: an online journal that combined the timeliness and accessibility of a blog with the seriousness and integrity of a peer reviewed scholarly journal. The extraordinary reach of AJIL Unbound today, re fl ected in both the diversity of its contributors and its global readership, owes a great deal to the publication ’ s early imprinting with Karen ’ s distinctive editorial style and approach to scholarly life and work. Karen had a unique gift for, and commitment to, engaging with scholarly voices of immense variety. She gave serious and unwavering attention to pluralism, power, and inequalities in the international legal fi eld, and she championed scholars working
本研讨会探讨了国际私法、国际公法和外交关系法的逻辑和实践中私人和公共注册的相互关系和并置。它的灵感来自于一位杰出学者和令人怀念的朋友的学术成果：Karen Knop，多伦多大学法学院教授兼塞西尔-A-赖特讲座教授（1960 - 2022）。本次研讨会以各种方式借鉴并参与凯伦的工作。它还提供了一个机会，让我们回顾《美国国际法杂志》（American Journal of International Law，AJIL）自 1907 年创刊以来围绕国际私法、国际公法和外交关系法之间的关系所广泛涉及的学术领域。文章作者在探讨这些长期存在的主题的同时，还重新利用了《AJIL Unbound》的独特之处。正如读者所熟知的，AJIL Unbound 在线公开发表国际法律学术原创短文，文章风格通俗易懂，旨在供世界各地的决策者、从业人员、跨学科学者和学生阅读。它旨在通过引入新的对话者、见解和分析模式，扩大和丰富亚洲法律协会的学术交流。卡伦是创建《亚洲期刊和国际期刊无界》的关键力量。从2014年《AJIL Unbound》创刊到2017年，她一直担任创刊编辑委员会主席；从2017年到2021年，她一直担任编辑委员会成员。她在设计和重新定义 AJIL Unbound 模式方面发挥了重要作用：这是一种将博客的及时性和可访问性与同行评审学术期刊的严肃性和完整性相结合的在线期刊。AJIL Unbound》今天的非凡影响力体现在其投稿人和全球读者的多样性上，这在很大程度上要归功于该刊物早期印刻的凯伦独特的编辑风格和对待学术生活与工作的态度。凯伦具有独特的天赋，并致力于与各种各样的学术声音打交道。她认真而坚定地关注国际法律领域的多元化、权力和不平等问题，并支持学者们在以下领域开展工作
{"title":"Introduction to the Symposium on International Laws Public and Private","authors":"Karen Engle, Fleur Johns, Annelise Riles","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.54","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.54","url":null,"abstract":"This symposium explores the interrelation and juxtaposition of private and public registers in the logics and practices of private international law, public international law, and foreign relations law. It is inspired by the scholarly work of a brilliant scholar and much-missed friend: Karen Knop, Professor and Cecil A. Wright Chair at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (1960 – 2022). The symposium draws from and engages with Karen ’ s work in various ways. It also provides an opportunity to traverse scholarly ground covered extensively in the American Journal of International Law ( AJIL ), since its 1907 establishment, surrounding relations among private international law, public international law, and foreign relations law. The essay authors explore these perennial themes while making fresh use of the distinctive features of AJIL Unbound . As readers well know, AJIL Unbound provides for the online and open-access publication of short, original essays of international legal scholarship written in a readable style intended to be accessible to policy-makers, practitioners, transdisciplinary scholars, and students around the world. It seeks to broaden and diversify AJIL scholarly exchanges by introducing new interlocutors, insights, and modes of analysis. Karen was a critical force in the creation of AJIL Unbound . She was chair of the founding editorial committee of AJIL Unbound from its launch in 2014 until 2017, and a member of its editorial committee from 2017 until 2021. She was instrumental in devising and re fi ning the AJIL Unbound model: an online journal that combined the timeliness and accessibility of a blog with the seriousness and integrity of a peer reviewed scholarly journal. The extraordinary reach of AJIL Unbound today, re fl ected in both the diversity of its contributors and its global readership, owes a great deal to the publication ’ s early imprinting with Karen ’ s distinctive editorial style and approach to scholarly life and work. Karen had a unique gift for, and commitment to, engaging with scholarly voices of immense variety. She gave serious and unwavering attention to pluralism, power, and inequalities in the international legal fi eld, and she championed scholars working","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139528814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this essay, I think with Karen Knop about the heuristic and critical potential of the framework of Foreign Relations Law (FRL) for Private International Law (PrIL). I apply the framework of FRL to the recognition of foreign marriages in Denmark to study how PrIL is operationalized by domestic authorities. FRL helps us see how PrIL's operationalization engages a wide array of legal fields, including Public International Law (PIL), domestic administrative law, and immigration law, as well as the domains of foreign service and foreign policy. In doing so, PrIL in this context draws upon all these fields’ rationales and implicit assumptions. I argue that a FRL perspective not only contributes to PrIL's theoretical self-reflection, but also enhances PrIL's capacity for subversiveness—“its ability to unsettle by showing a given legal system's assumptions and approaches to be a matter of choice rather than simply common sense.”1
{"title":"Foreign Relations Law as a Method of Private International Law's Theoretical Self-Reflection and Critique","authors":"Nicole Stybnarova","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.57","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, I think with Karen Knop about the heuristic and critical potential of the framework of Foreign Relations Law (FRL) for Private International Law (PrIL). I apply the framework of FRL to the recognition of foreign marriages in Denmark to study how PrIL is operationalized by domestic authorities. FRL helps us see how PrIL's operationalization engages a wide array of legal fields, including Public International Law (PIL), domestic administrative law, and immigration law, as well as the domains of foreign service and foreign policy. In doing so, PrIL in this context draws upon all these fields’ rationales and implicit assumptions. I argue that a FRL perspective not only contributes to PrIL's theoretical self-reflection, but also enhances PrIL's capacity for subversiveness—“its ability to unsettle by showing a given legal system's assumptions and approaches to be a matter of choice rather than simply common sense.”1","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139529926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In her analysis of James Lorimer's The Institutes of the Law of the Nations (1883), Karen Knop called on public international lawyers to explore the potential of Lorimer's figure of the “private citizens of the world” to illuminate the position of the individual in international law.1 She argued that focusing on the individual's private law dimension revealed hidden understandings and manifestations of the international. This focus, she observed, might even clarify the structural role that nonstate actors and their legal interactions play in shaping sovereign states and their relations.2 This essay builds on Knop's insight to reflect on the role of actors involved in frontier expansion in international law. I examine the settlement of land deemed desert in South America at the turn of the nineteenth century, as private actors used law to incorporate new territories and resources into a capitalist order. Drawing on the work of Argentinian jurist Carlos Calvo, and analyzing specific cases of settlement in the Amazon, I explain how these actors and their legal practices participated in the consolidation of a territorial order of states. Following Knop's prompt, I explore how examining the role of individuals and their private allegiances sharpens our view of how international law exercises power and distributes resources around the world. Combined with efforts to decentralize the history of international law, Knop's private lens shows how individuals seeking to expand the capitalist frontier make international law, not only at the core, but also on the margins and in the interactions between the two.
{"title":"Private Citizens of the World and Frontier Expansion","authors":"Filipe Antunes Madeira da Silva","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.52","url":null,"abstract":"In her analysis of James Lorimer's The Institutes of the Law of the Nations (1883), Karen Knop called on public international lawyers to explore the potential of Lorimer's figure of the “private citizens of the world” to illuminate the position of the individual in international law.1 She argued that focusing on the individual's private law dimension revealed hidden understandings and manifestations of the international. This focus, she observed, might even clarify the structural role that nonstate actors and their legal interactions play in shaping sovereign states and their relations.2 This essay builds on Knop's insight to reflect on the role of actors involved in frontier expansion in international law. I examine the settlement of land deemed desert in South America at the turn of the nineteenth century, as private actors used law to incorporate new territories and resources into a capitalist order. Drawing on the work of Argentinian jurist Carlos Calvo, and analyzing specific cases of settlement in the Amazon, I explain how these actors and their legal practices participated in the consolidation of a territorial order of states. Following Knop's prompt, I explore how examining the role of individuals and their private allegiances sharpens our view of how international law exercises power and distributes resources around the world. Combined with efforts to decentralize the history of international law, Knop's private lens shows how individuals seeking to expand the capitalist frontier make international law, not only at the core, but also on the margins and in the interactions between the two.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139530384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are non-binding and lack operative clauses requiring compliance. At the same time, they reflect the ICJ's views as to rights and obligations of states under international law. In that sense they are not different from binding judgments and generate expectations of implementation of the Court's determinations. Although some states may reject an opinion, others have pursued implementation through the requesting organ, or through alternative political and legal means. And although it is not always easy to ascertain the effect of an opinion on states’ behavior, advisory opinions often have practical ramifications, even if they are not implemented.
{"title":"How do States React to Advisory Opinions? Rejection, Implementation, and what Lies in Between","authors":"Eran Sthoeger","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.49","url":null,"abstract":"Advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are non-binding and lack operative clauses requiring compliance. At the same time, they reflect the ICJ's views as to rights and obligations of states under international law. In that sense they are not different from binding judgments and generate expectations of implementation of the Court's determinations. Although some states may reject an opinion, others have pursued implementation through the requesting organ, or through alternative political and legal means. And although it is not always easy to ascertain the effect of an opinion on states’ behavior, advisory opinions often have practical ramifications, even if they are not implemented.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138602254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In most international tribunals, states alone can submit requests for advisory opinions.1 This is also true of requests to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) sitting in plenary composition. The United Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)2 does not expressly confer advisory jurisdiction on ITLOS. In practice, the Tribunal's advisory jurisdiction is governed by Article 138 of its Rules of Procedure, under which international agreements can empower entities to request advisory opinions of the Tribunal. The process leading to the making of advisory requests to ITLOS includes the drafting of legal questions and is largely political.3 In this process, sponsoring states have three goals: first, get requests before ITLOS; second, ensure that requests are not thrown out on grounds of jurisdiction or discretion; third, mobilize the constituency having stakes in the requests. This essay explores each of these goals.
{"title":"Three Goals of States as They Seek Advisory Opinions from ITLOS","authors":"Massimo Lando","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.47","url":null,"abstract":"In most international tribunals, states alone can submit requests for advisory opinions.1 This is also true of requests to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) sitting in plenary composition. The United Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)2 does not expressly confer advisory jurisdiction on ITLOS. In practice, the Tribunal's advisory jurisdiction is governed by Article 138 of its Rules of Procedure, under which international agreements can empower entities to request advisory opinions of the Tribunal. The process leading to the making of advisory requests to ITLOS includes the drafting of legal questions and is largely political.3 In this process, sponsoring states have three goals: first, get requests before ITLOS; second, ensure that requests are not thrown out on grounds of jurisdiction or discretion; third, mobilize the constituency having stakes in the requests. This essay explores each of these goals.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138604263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to Symposium on the Contours and Limits of Advisory Opinions","authors":"Jean Galbraith","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.48","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.48","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138602646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Law, like medicine, is a practiced discipline, and the practice of international law is no exception. There are different contexts in which that practice unfolds. Here, our focus is on: (1) a specific form of practice, that of “advocates,” understood widely to include counsel advising or representing a party in legal proceedings, diplomats supporting a policy directive, and civil society activists advocating for legal causes; (2) engaging in different forms of legal advocacy, which can be organized analytically under three headings: legal advice and representation, diplomacy, and campaigning; and (3) in a specific context, that of advisory opinions and, more specifically, in the conception of requests for advisory opinions. Such requests are subject to different requirements according to the institutional setting through which they are channeled, but the most prominent and complex setting is that of requests for advisory opinions by the UN General Assembly to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is the setting we will refer to in our essay.
{"title":"The Role of Advocates in the Conception of Advisory Opinion Requests","authors":"M. Wewerinke‐Singh, J. Viñuales, Julian Aguon","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.46","url":null,"abstract":"Law, like medicine, is a practiced discipline, and the practice of international law is no exception. There are different contexts in which that practice unfolds. Here, our focus is on: (1) a specific form of practice, that of “advocates,” understood widely to include counsel advising or representing a party in legal proceedings, diplomats supporting a policy directive, and civil society activists advocating for legal causes; (2) engaging in different forms of legal advocacy, which can be organized analytically under three headings: legal advice and representation, diplomacy, and campaigning; and (3) in a specific context, that of advisory opinions and, more specifically, in the conception of requests for advisory opinions. Such requests are subject to different requirements according to the institutional setting through which they are channeled, but the most prominent and complex setting is that of requests for advisory opinions by the UN General Assembly to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is the setting we will refer to in our essay.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138603787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：