{"title":"Other subjects of international law","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.4324/9781003213772-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003213772-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72799018","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}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.4324/9781003213772-16
David Pataraia
{"title":"International environmental law","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.4324/9781003213772-16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003213772-16","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78228730","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":"Sources of international law","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.4324/9781003213772-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003213772-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80500126","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":"The essence of law and the nature of international law","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.4324/9781003213772-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003213772-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90760179","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":"Principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.4324/9781003213772-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003213772-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75132691","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}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.4324/9781003213772-10
David Pataraia
{"title":"Jurisdiction","authors":"David Pataraia","doi":"10.4324/9781003213772-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003213772-10","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82019269","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}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0221
In 1947, the United Kingdom and the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) concluded that Palestine’s Arabs and Jews, who had been subject to a British-administered League of Nations mandate since 1922, were sufficiently advanced to govern themselves. A “Plan of Partition with Economic Union” was subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 181 (II) “for the future Government of Palestine” (Resolution 181 (II)) that made provision for the establishment of two states in the territory along with a special international regime for the City of Jerusalem. The plan was never implemented in the way it was foreseen, due to the outbreak of war, although the UN Secretariat, the Soviet Union, and the Jewish Agency, considered it a binding act of international law. This was also a view that was reiterated by other states when Israel applied for membership of the UN, and during the debate in the UN General Assembly to establish a special international regime for Jerusalem in 1949. Additionally, there is jurisprudence in the International Court of Justice concerning the South West Africa/Namibia cases, and judgments in Israeli and Italian courts that can be cited in support of this view. Statements made by UK officials in 1947 referred to Resolution 181 (II) as a decision of a court of international opinion. The views of the US Government and France were equivocal, although both issued statements that could be interpreted to mean that they viewed Resolution 181 (II) as normative, given the subsidiary powers conferred on the General Assembly by Article 22 of the UN Charter. The Arab states, on the other hand, opposed the resolution during the debates in 1947 on the basis that it was contrary to the Palestinian Arab people’s right of self-determination to establish a single unitary state over the whole territory. However, Israel and the Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) accepted Resolution 181 (II) as a basis for negotiation in the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949, indicating that it was acceptable, in principle, as a basis for negotiating the territorial issue, before negotiations began in the UN Trusteeship Council and the UN General Assembly on establishing a special international regime for Jerusalem. Although Resolution 181 (II) was never implemented in the way it was foreseen, a UN Mediator was established with wide powers to continue the work of the Palestine Commission. These powers were subsequently transferred to the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), before a plurality of states in the UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinian people as a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace (GA Res 3236, 22 November 1974, para 4), who could participate in its work, in furtherance of their right to self-determination, through the representation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—initially as an observer (GA Res 3237, 22 November 1974), then as an observer state (
{"title":"The UN Partition Plan for Palestine and International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0221","url":null,"abstract":"In 1947, the United Kingdom and the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) concluded that Palestine’s Arabs and Jews, who had been subject to a British-administered League of Nations mandate since 1922, were sufficiently advanced to govern themselves. A “Plan of Partition with Economic Union” was subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 181 (II) “for the future Government of Palestine” (Resolution 181 (II)) that made provision for the establishment of two states in the territory along with a special international regime for the City of Jerusalem. The plan was never implemented in the way it was foreseen, due to the outbreak of war, although the UN Secretariat, the Soviet Union, and the Jewish Agency, considered it a binding act of international law. This was also a view that was reiterated by other states when Israel applied for membership of the UN, and during the debate in the UN General Assembly to establish a special international regime for Jerusalem in 1949. Additionally, there is jurisprudence in the International Court of Justice concerning the South West Africa/Namibia cases, and judgments in Israeli and Italian courts that can be cited in support of this view. Statements made by UK officials in 1947 referred to Resolution 181 (II) as a decision of a court of international opinion. The views of the US Government and France were equivocal, although both issued statements that could be interpreted to mean that they viewed Resolution 181 (II) as normative, given the subsidiary powers conferred on the General Assembly by Article 22 of the UN Charter. The Arab states, on the other hand, opposed the resolution during the debates in 1947 on the basis that it was contrary to the Palestinian Arab people’s right of self-determination to establish a single unitary state over the whole territory. However, Israel and the Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) accepted Resolution 181 (II) as a basis for negotiation in the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949, indicating that it was acceptable, in principle, as a basis for negotiating the territorial issue, before negotiations began in the UN Trusteeship Council and the UN General Assembly on establishing a special international regime for Jerusalem. Although Resolution 181 (II) was never implemented in the way it was foreseen, a UN Mediator was established with wide powers to continue the work of the Palestine Commission. These powers were subsequently transferred to the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), before a plurality of states in the UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinian people as a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace (GA Res 3236, 22 November 1974, para 4), who could participate in its work, in furtherance of their right to self-determination, through the representation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—initially as an observer (GA Res 3237, 22 November 1974), then as an observer state (","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72458017","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}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0232
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second biggest international organization after the United Nations. It comprises fifty-seven full member states, representing one-quarter of the global population, and it is the only international organization whose unifying feature is its religious and Islamic identity. As such, it represents an anomaly in international relations and largely explains why the organization has not figured in the majority of mainstream publications on international law until relatively recently. Established in the wake of universal Muslim outrage following the burning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969, the OIC has provided a political platform for predominantly Muslim states to promote “Islamic solidarity.” But it has also provided a forum to develop consensual positions on many international matters—from international trade and the development of Islamic banking and halal food networks to peace and security, hate speech, and the protection of Muslim minorities. The OIC now forms a considerable bloc of countries at the UN and, with the presence of both Russia and China as observers, it has capacity to wield considerable influence on the world stage and to co-sponsor common agendas. For much of its existence, however, the OIC has been a peripheral grouping and a marginal player. Although it has forty-eight subsidiary and specialized organs, the organization itself is often dismissed as a talking shop and is without any enforcement legal machinery. No committee is endowed with powers to mirror the UN’s Security Council nor has the OIC established any legal body to issue binding legal rulings on member states. The International Islamic Court of Justice, the intended Islamic World Court, seated in Jerusalem, has never operated and even its statute is yet to be ratified by the required two-thirds of OIC members. In spite of its known weaknesses and historical failures, under the leadership of its current and previous secretary-general, the OIC has sprung to life. Since arming itself with a new “fit for purpose” Charter in 2008, the OIC has shown a greater willingness to engage in key areas of international law, including humanitarian law, peace-making, human rights, international terrorism, and, more recently, environmental protection and climate change. If concerns were formerly expressed at the OIC’s apparent ambivalence toward international law, the recent case brought against the government of Myanmar for committing genocide against the Rohingyas by the Gambia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with the full backing of the OIC, and the ICJ order in January 2020 against Myanmar for preliminary relief provides evidence of increasing engagement with international law and of success when doing so.
{"title":"International Law and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0232","url":null,"abstract":"The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second biggest international organization after the United Nations. It comprises fifty-seven full member states, representing one-quarter of the global population, and it is the only international organization whose unifying feature is its religious and Islamic identity. As such, it represents an anomaly in international relations and largely explains why the organization has not figured in the majority of mainstream publications on international law until relatively recently. Established in the wake of universal Muslim outrage following the burning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969, the OIC has provided a political platform for predominantly Muslim states to promote “Islamic solidarity.” But it has also provided a forum to develop consensual positions on many international matters—from international trade and the development of Islamic banking and halal food networks to peace and security, hate speech, and the protection of Muslim minorities. The OIC now forms a considerable bloc of countries at the UN and, with the presence of both Russia and China as observers, it has capacity to wield considerable influence on the world stage and to co-sponsor common agendas. For much of its existence, however, the OIC has been a peripheral grouping and a marginal player. Although it has forty-eight subsidiary and specialized organs, the organization itself is often dismissed as a talking shop and is without any enforcement legal machinery. No committee is endowed with powers to mirror the UN’s Security Council nor has the OIC established any legal body to issue binding legal rulings on member states. The International Islamic Court of Justice, the intended Islamic World Court, seated in Jerusalem, has never operated and even its statute is yet to be ratified by the required two-thirds of OIC members. In spite of its known weaknesses and historical failures, under the leadership of its current and previous secretary-general, the OIC has sprung to life. Since arming itself with a new “fit for purpose” Charter in 2008, the OIC has shown a greater willingness to engage in key areas of international law, including humanitarian law, peace-making, human rights, international terrorism, and, more recently, environmental protection and climate change. If concerns were formerly expressed at the OIC’s apparent ambivalence toward international law, the recent case brought against the government of Myanmar for committing genocide against the Rohingyas by the Gambia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with the full backing of the OIC, and the ICJ order in January 2020 against Myanmar for preliminary relief provides evidence of increasing engagement with international law and of success when doing so.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85408554","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}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0233
The international law of money laundering is found in several United Nations (UN) crime suppression treaties, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, and a body of soft law, some of which arguably has crystallized as customary norms. Beginning with the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna Convention), states agreed to establish anti-money laundering (AML) measures in their domestic law for drug-related offenses. This was followed by AML measures against organized crime and corruption, respectively, in the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention), including its protocols and the 2003 UN Convention against Corruption (Merida Convention). The AML measures include the criminalization of money laundering, powers to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of crime, duties of the private sector to generate financial intelligence, the establishment of financial intelligence units (FIUs), and formal legal cooperation arrangements between states, necessary given the transnational dimension of money laundering. While AML originally covered only property derived from crime, its measures were extended to property used to finance or carry out crimes, most notably for terrorist acts and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Though countries concluded a treaty against terrorist financing in 1999, it was not until after the events of 11 September 2001 that anti-terrorism financing norms, as part of the panoply of AML measures, were diffused around the world by UNSC resolutions. International bodies, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), have prepared model laws to assist countries to incorporate AML measures. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), established in 1989 by the G7 industrialized nations, is the most important and influential body in setting detailed international standards on AML. Through replication of its norms and functions by regional bodies, the FATF’s soft law of AML measures has hardened into near universal domestic AML laws, adopted to signify the integrity of a country’s financial systems. European nations extensively adopted AML measures by treaties and directives, sometimes going beyond FATF recommendations. As AML measures have grown in number and global significance, critical literature has grown, questioning their effectiveness, whether their benefits outweigh their costs, and whether they are justified from the standpoint of principles of criminal liability and human rights law. For more criminological literature, readers may wish to consult the Oxford Bibliographies in Criminology article Money Laundering. Research for this work was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. 17603319). Thanks to Sean Yau and Ting Yin Lau for their research assistance.
{"title":"Money Laundering in International Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0233","url":null,"abstract":"The international law of money laundering is found in several United Nations (UN) crime suppression treaties, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, and a body of soft law, some of which arguably has crystallized as customary norms. Beginning with the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna Convention), states agreed to establish anti-money laundering (AML) measures in their domestic law for drug-related offenses. This was followed by AML measures against organized crime and corruption, respectively, in the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention), including its protocols and the 2003 UN Convention against Corruption (Merida Convention). The AML measures include the criminalization of money laundering, powers to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of crime, duties of the private sector to generate financial intelligence, the establishment of financial intelligence units (FIUs), and formal legal cooperation arrangements between states, necessary given the transnational dimension of money laundering. While AML originally covered only property derived from crime, its measures were extended to property used to finance or carry out crimes, most notably for terrorist acts and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Though countries concluded a treaty against terrorist financing in 1999, it was not until after the events of 11 September 2001 that anti-terrorism financing norms, as part of the panoply of AML measures, were diffused around the world by UNSC resolutions. International bodies, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), have prepared model laws to assist countries to incorporate AML measures. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), established in 1989 by the G7 industrialized nations, is the most important and influential body in setting detailed international standards on AML. Through replication of its norms and functions by regional bodies, the FATF’s soft law of AML measures has hardened into near universal domestic AML laws, adopted to signify the integrity of a country’s financial systems. European nations extensively adopted AML measures by treaties and directives, sometimes going beyond FATF recommendations. As AML measures have grown in number and global significance, critical literature has grown, questioning their effectiveness, whether their benefits outweigh their costs, and whether they are justified from the standpoint of principles of criminal liability and human rights law. For more criminological literature, readers may wish to consult the Oxford Bibliographies in Criminology article Money Laundering. Research for this work was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. 17603319). Thanks to Sean Yau and Ting Yin Lau for their research assistance.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82310269","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0224
Despite the current prevalence of English as a lingua franca in international law, many international lawyers in countries such as Portugal, Brazil, Mozambique, and Angola have written a number of works in Portuguese. While more than ever, scholars from Portuguese-speaking countries have contributed to international legal journals and edited volumes in English, international legal scholars still insist on writing in Portuguese for several reasons. Portugal and Brazil have a long history of engagement with international legal concepts, institutions, and rules, which also stems from their long and well-established diplomatic traditions. For centuries, Portuguese international lawyers, followed by those in Brazil, have dealt with international legal issues and reflected upon them in the Portuguese language. In addition, states where Portuguese is spoken that emerged after the decolonization movement have made the language relevant, especially in several African countries. Factors related to the editorial market are also noteworthy. Portuguese-speaking countries have populations that total nearly 300 million. A stable demand exists for works written in Portuguese: a significant number of international law textbooks are written in the language. One cannot underestimate the deliberate interest shown by some scholars in writing in Portuguese to stimulate a necessary polyphony in the international legal discipline and, in many cases, to give form to acts of resistance to what is seen as the prevalence of English in the current international law literature. International law literature written in Portuguese has shown a slight preference for specific topics, such as the law of the sea, sources, the relationship between international and domestic law, and human rights. The oceans have been economically and strategically crucial for Portugal and its former colonies for centuries. Preference given to sources is due also perhaps to the strong relevance that Romano-Germanic legal systems attach to formal legal sources. As seen in different parts of the world, the growing call for domestic actors, including courts, to interpret and apply international law helps to explain the increasing volume of work on the relationship between international and domestic law and human rights. This article has three main parts. The first part deals with Textbooks, Treatises, and Encyclopedias. The second concerns specific chapters of international law in which relevant literature written in Portuguese is identifiable. Although this article is mainly focused on books, the last section is devoted to the most pertinent international legal Journals and Blogs published in Portuguese. Most of the works are written by Brazilian scholars. However, this choice detracts in no way from the quality of scholarship in other Portuguese-speaking countries; rather, it derives from an attempt to present a wide variety of works, in different subfields of the discipline, in the Portuguese language.
{"title":"International Law in Portuguese","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0224","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the current prevalence of English as a lingua franca in international law, many international lawyers in countries such as Portugal, Brazil, Mozambique, and Angola have written a number of works in Portuguese. While more than ever, scholars from Portuguese-speaking countries have contributed to international legal journals and edited volumes in English, international legal scholars still insist on writing in Portuguese for several reasons. Portugal and Brazil have a long history of engagement with international legal concepts, institutions, and rules, which also stems from their long and well-established diplomatic traditions. For centuries, Portuguese international lawyers, followed by those in Brazil, have dealt with international legal issues and reflected upon them in the Portuguese language. In addition, states where Portuguese is spoken that emerged after the decolonization movement have made the language relevant, especially in several African countries. Factors related to the editorial market are also noteworthy. Portuguese-speaking countries have populations that total nearly 300 million. A stable demand exists for works written in Portuguese: a significant number of international law textbooks are written in the language. One cannot underestimate the deliberate interest shown by some scholars in writing in Portuguese to stimulate a necessary polyphony in the international legal discipline and, in many cases, to give form to acts of resistance to what is seen as the prevalence of English in the current international law literature. International law literature written in Portuguese has shown a slight preference for specific topics, such as the law of the sea, sources, the relationship between international and domestic law, and human rights. The oceans have been economically and strategically crucial for Portugal and its former colonies for centuries. Preference given to sources is due also perhaps to the strong relevance that Romano-Germanic legal systems attach to formal legal sources. As seen in different parts of the world, the growing call for domestic actors, including courts, to interpret and apply international law helps to explain the increasing volume of work on the relationship between international and domestic law and human rights. This article has three main parts. The first part deals with Textbooks, Treatises, and Encyclopedias. The second concerns specific chapters of international law in which relevant literature written in Portuguese is identifiable. Although this article is mainly focused on books, the last section is devoted to the most pertinent international legal Journals and Blogs published in Portuguese. Most of the works are written by Brazilian scholars. However, this choice detracts in no way from the quality of scholarship in other Portuguese-speaking countries; rather, it derives from an attempt to present a wide variety of works, in different subfields of the discipline, in the Portuguese language.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82658540","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：