Leiden Journal of International Law最新文献

In international legal historiography, it becomes a commonplace that the successful resolution of the Alabama dispute between Britain and the US by the 1872 Geneva Tribunal of arbitration – the 1872 Alabama arbitration – kindled the progressivist enthusiasm of liberal internationalists for projects of humanitarianism, the codification of international law, and international arbitration. The article aims to take this scholarship further by arguing that, against this backdrop of reformist enthusiasm for international law, two transnational social reform movements – pacifist internationalism and legalist internationalism – converged in a joint effort of social and intellectual mobilization in furtherance of an ordered system of international law and its judicial application in practice. The epitome of this encounter was the almost simultaneous creation of the International Law Association and the Institut de Droit International in 1873. The article shows that international jurists sought to delineate the nascent modern international law profession by strategically distancing their scientific cause of international law from the one embarked on by their pacifist counterparts. By demarcating international legal science in contrast to the contemporary pacifist activism of international law, international jurists set the parameters of their social networks, and manoeuvred for professional outreach. Yet it is precisely by bringing back the pacifist antithesis that had been deliberately relegated into the secondary by international jurists – ‘the men of 1873’ – that some previously under-emphasized aspects of the sensibility of l’esprit d’internationalité can be grasped.

Article 281 of UNCLOS allows states parties to a dispute to set aside the compulsory dispute resolution procedures under Section 2 of Part XV. This article discusses the recent jurisprudence that appears in the interpretations of Article 281. It discusses in turn whether, first, Article 281 provides requirements for agreements under Article 281(1) to activate the opt-out procedure from the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism; second, whether such agreements under Article 281(1) must include an explicit exclusion from the procedures under Section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS; and, finally, whether agreements under Article 281(1) must include a compulsory dispute settlement procedure allowing binding decisions. It is concluded that Article 281 is not designed for compulsory dispute settlement procedures, which is the object and purpose of Article 282. Instead, Article 281 opts for consensual dispute settlement mechanisms which, under certain circumstances, may set aside the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism in Section 2 of Part XV.

This article addresses the question of whether the violence between Türkiye and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) constitutes an armed conflict within the meaning of international humanitarian law. The article first explains the different non-international armed conflict descriptions provided by (i) the ICTY’s famous Tadić decision, (ii) Additional Protocol II, and (iii) the Rome Statute of the ICC and discusses the different applicability thresholds set by these sources. After noting that the terrorist nature of the acts of violence in a situation will not prevent them from being characterized as an armed conflict and that the application of the international humanitarian law norms would not in fact affect the legal status of the PKK, this article examines whether Türkiye’s struggle against the PKK could be classified as an armed conflict subject to international humanitarian law norms.

Philip Jessup’s 1956 Storrs Lectures, Transnational Law, developed a case for theorizing law beyond the state which continues to shape understandings of transnational law. Yet while transnational law has assumed increasing importance with globalization, it remains beset by conceptual difficulties. This article suggests that such difficulties are at least partly attributable to misreadings of Transnational Law primarily as proposing a more pragmatic concept to drive law’s progression. Contextualizing the Lectures within Jessup’s involvement in the US’s postwar worldmaking project and the contrasting project pursued by Third World states, and through close textual study, it contends that Transnational Law is better understood as geared to undermining the legal foundations of key efforts to counter Western dominance. It further shows how this reading can aid in clarifying misunderstandings of Jessup’s Lectures that still inform transnational law scholarship and in considering how law’s capacity to sustain inequality and exploitation may be challenged.

This article examines the idea of the sui generis in international law and explores how these exceptions structure international legal thought. Exceptions are useful to international law theorizing because they create easy manageable narratives which explain situations not fitting traditional paradigms, yet as a category in their own right – specifically how they are structured and how they operate – they are often undertheorized. The two examples explored in this article are sui generis actors and the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction. I demonstrate the foundational role played by (state-)territorialized thinking in the creation of oppositional categories: state and non-state, and the non-exceptional and exceptional exercise of jurisdiction. The category of exceptions has significantly expanded from the likes of the Holy See and irregular exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction to a broad array of actors, such as international organizations and transnational corporations, playing growing and varied roles in contemporary law-making and governance and the regular exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by states. Rather than continuing with this overextended category, the article argues it is instead possible, by rethinking international law’s spatial imaginary, to first, better understand the spaces of non-state actors and regularized exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction and second, eradicate the now overstretched legal category of ‘sui generis’.