In the span of two decades, Third World approaches to international law (TWAIL) experienced a meteoric rise, becoming not only one of the most interesting but also one of the dominant approaches to international law. This Afterword to the Foreword by Antony Anghie reflects upon the rise of TWAIL and its significance to the discipline of international law. I argue that having become part of the disciplinary mainstream, TWAIL ‘civilizes’ international law, making it more difficult for international lawyers to ignore or dismiss the colonial origins and legacies of their field. As TWAIL leaves a mark on international law, new spaces for international legal action by the peoples of the global South might have been opened. Does greater action weaken TWAIL’s central insights about colonial origins and legacies? Maybe, and if so, a mainstream TWAIL opens also disciplinary space for other critical approaches that shine light on Third World experiences of international law that point not just to oppression but also to North/South engagement and, potentially, Southern resistance.
{"title":"After TWAIL’s Success, What Next? Afterword to the Foreword by Antony Anghie","authors":"Arnulf Becker Lorca","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad059","url":null,"abstract":"In the span of two decades, Third World approaches to international law (TWAIL) experienced a meteoric rise, becoming not only one of the most interesting but also one of the dominant approaches to international law. This Afterword to the Foreword by Antony Anghie reflects upon the rise of TWAIL and its significance to the discipline of international law. I argue that having become part of the disciplinary mainstream, TWAIL ‘civilizes’ international law, making it more difficult for international lawyers to ignore or dismiss the colonial origins and legacies of their field. As TWAIL leaves a mark on international law, new spaces for international legal action by the peoples of the global South might have been opened. Does greater action weaken TWAIL’s central insights about colonial origins and legacies? Maybe, and if so, a mainstream TWAIL opens also disciplinary space for other critical approaches that shine light on Third World experiences of international law that point not just to oppression but also to North/South engagement and, potentially, Southern resistance.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138692504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his Foreword, Antony Anghie contrasts two systems of reparations: the Third World system, which is about reparations for colonial expropriation and disenfranchisement, and the Western system, according to which, in the context of decolonization, newly independent states were allowed to expropriate foreign corporations only in return for full compensation. While the Western system has been firmly anchored in international law through the law of aliens and – later – investment law, the Third World system still meets with resistance in international legal discourse. Convinced that international law should be instrumental in overcoming its own colonial origins, I attempt in the following article to explore possible legal foundations by countering the main arguments raised against demands for reparations from the global South: their disruptive effects on today’s societies, conceptual and technical legal obstacles, as well as the doctrine of non-retroactivity of the law. Not being a TWAIL scholar myself, I hope that this might serve as a constructive contribution to a common cause.
{"title":"The Third World and the Quest for Reparations: Afterword to the Foreword by Antony Anghie","authors":"Andreas von Arnauld","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad058","url":null,"abstract":"In his Foreword, Antony Anghie contrasts two systems of reparations: the Third World system, which is about reparations for colonial expropriation and disenfranchisement, and the Western system, according to which, in the context of decolonization, newly independent states were allowed to expropriate foreign corporations only in return for full compensation. While the Western system has been firmly anchored in international law through the law of aliens and – later – investment law, the Third World system still meets with resistance in international legal discourse. Convinced that international law should be instrumental in overcoming its own colonial origins, I attempt in the following article to explore possible legal foundations by countering the main arguments raised against demands for reparations from the global South: their disruptive effects on today’s societies, conceptual and technical legal obstacles, as well as the doctrine of non-retroactivity of the law. Not being a TWAIL scholar myself, I hope that this might serve as a constructive contribution to a common cause.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138562180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sanna S. Lehtinen, Review of Emily Jones, Feminist Theory and International Law: Posthuman Perspectives","authors":"Sanna S. Lehtinen","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad061","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"111 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138607632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Prisca Feihle, Review of Alice Ollino, Due Diligence Obligations in International Law","authors":"Prisca Feihle","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad052","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"112 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134957197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article examines the emergence and development in China of the discipline of international organizations law by specifically focusing on the scholarship of Professor Rao Geping, a founding figure of the discipline. Rao’s writings are read in light of his personal life and professional career as well as China’s economic and social reforms and its foreign policy. A communitarian, cooperative and legal approach to international organizations emerged as Rao’s choice. International organizations are seen mostly as fora for interstate deliberations and negotiations and are approached mainly from their procedural aspect and channelling function. What has been highlighted is a facilitative, procedural and instrumental conception of international organizations rather than an autonomous, functional or regulatory one. Rao advocates an inclusive approach to international organizations, which tends to include flexible, informal frameworks into the ambit of the study of international organizations. In constructing institutions as forms and fora, Rao’s writings effectively play a double role, translating the liberal, progressive ideas of international organizations into domestic international legal studies and facilitating China’s continuous economic reform and political integration into the international system. Rao’s scholarship presents an instructive example of how a scholar from a semi-periphery country may navigate various tensions and paradoxes behind universal concepts and negotiate their concept of international organizations.
{"title":"International Institutions as Forms and Fora: Rao Geping and the Law of International Organizations in China","authors":"Yifeng Chen","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad056","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the emergence and development in China of the discipline of international organizations law by specifically focusing on the scholarship of Professor Rao Geping, a founding figure of the discipline. Rao’s writings are read in light of his personal life and professional career as well as China’s economic and social reforms and its foreign policy. A communitarian, cooperative and legal approach to international organizations emerged as Rao’s choice. International organizations are seen mostly as fora for interstate deliberations and negotiations and are approached mainly from their procedural aspect and channelling function. What has been highlighted is a facilitative, procedural and instrumental conception of international organizations rather than an autonomous, functional or regulatory one. Rao advocates an inclusive approach to international organizations, which tends to include flexible, informal frameworks into the ambit of the study of international organizations. In constructing institutions as forms and fora, Rao’s writings effectively play a double role, translating the liberal, progressive ideas of international organizations into domestic international legal studies and facilitating China’s continuous economic reform and political integration into the international system. Rao’s scholarship presents an instructive example of how a scholar from a semi-periphery country may navigate various tensions and paradoxes behind universal concepts and negotiate their concept of international organizations.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"67 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136281723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 22 February 2022, the European Union (EU) and states such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America froze assets of the Russian central bank held in their jurisdictions. The sanctions fit in a longer pattern of states freezing assets of foreign central banks, which has been criticized by several states to be incompatible with the law of state immunity. The criticism on these types of sanctions raises the question whether freezing assets of Russia’s central bank complies with the law of state immunity. This article answers this question by investigating whether the law of state immunity is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or if it also applies in the context of executive action. Considering that the law of state immunity also applies to executive action, these sanctioning states (and the EU) violated Russia’s state immunity by freezing assets of Russia’s central bank. These sanctions, however, could be justified as (third party) countermeasures in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
{"title":"Illegal, Unless: Freezing the Assets of Russia’s Central Bank","authors":"Ron van der Horst","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad053","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 22 February 2022, the European Union (EU) and states such as Canada, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America froze assets of the Russian central bank held in their jurisdictions. The sanctions fit in a longer pattern of states freezing assets of foreign central banks, which has been criticized by several states to be incompatible with the law of state immunity. The criticism on these types of sanctions raises the question whether freezing assets of Russia’s central bank complies with the law of state immunity. This article answers this question by investigating whether the law of state immunity is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or if it also applies in the context of executive action. Considering that the law of state immunity also applies to executive action, these sanctioning states (and the EU) violated Russia’s state immunity by freezing assets of Russia’s central bank. These sanctions, however, could be justified as (third party) countermeasures in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"38 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135935332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The freezing of the Russian Central Bank’s (CBR) foreign currency reserves in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been unparalleled in terms of the amounts involved and the swiftness of its international coordination. Despite the scepticism in some quarters of unilateral sanctions writ large, the key issue under international law is the compatibility of such measures with state immunity. Specifically, two questions arise. The first one is whether the law of state immunity allows for executive, as opposed to judicial, freezing of central bank property. The second one is whether, even if such measures were otherwise in breach of international law, circumstances precluding wrongfulness nonetheless render them lawful. As this article shows, the answer to the first question is finely balanced, but it is virtually certain that the ongoing attachment of the CBR’s assets constitutes lawful countermeasures.
{"title":"Legal: The Freezing of the Russian Central Bank’s Assets","authors":"Anton Moiseienko","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad050","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The freezing of the Russian Central Bank’s (CBR) foreign currency reserves in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been unparalleled in terms of the amounts involved and the swiftness of its international coordination. Despite the scepticism in some quarters of unilateral sanctions writ large, the key issue under international law is the compatibility of such measures with state immunity. Specifically, two questions arise. The first one is whether the law of state immunity allows for executive, as opposed to judicial, freezing of central bank property. The second one is whether, even if such measures were otherwise in breach of international law, circumstances precluding wrongfulness nonetheless render them lawful. As this article shows, the answer to the first question is finely balanced, but it is virtually certain that the ongoing attachment of the CBR’s assets constitutes lawful countermeasures.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"191 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135935333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In a world marked by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptive technological change, ensuring ‘strategic autonomy’ is now an avowed goal of numerous European Union (EU) policy initiatives. This article seeks to facilitate an assessment of this ‘policy turn’ by developing a taxonomy of associated objectives and by illuminating points of conformance and conflict with EU and international law. The EU Treaties offer a robust legal basis for a stronger-values orientation in external relations, for policies designed to rebalance reciprocity in pursuit of geo-economic ambition and for the pursuit of technological leadership within the EU Treaties’ level-playing-field legal foundation. Yet there is a thin line to collisions with international (trade and investment) law, notably where value prioritization, technological preferences or geopolitical concerns are tantamount to discrimination or invite protectionist policy choices. Employment of coercive tools in a unilateral fashion questions the legal default of multilateralism and openness. Persistent strategic diversity within the Union hinders ‘institutional autonomy’, particularly where unanimity voting makes intergovernmentalism the predominant mode of cooperation. The findings shed light on how the evolving geopolitical environment leads to a recalibration of EU external relations between protection and openness, independence and interdependence, unilateralism and multilateralism and power and rules.
{"title":"The EU’s Turn to ‘Strategic Autonomy’: Leeway for Policy Action and Points of Conflict","authors":"Armin Steinbach","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In a world marked by intensifying geopolitical rivalries, supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptive technological change, ensuring ‘strategic autonomy’ is now an avowed goal of numerous European Union (EU) policy initiatives. This article seeks to facilitate an assessment of this ‘policy turn’ by developing a taxonomy of associated objectives and by illuminating points of conformance and conflict with EU and international law. The EU Treaties offer a robust legal basis for a stronger-values orientation in external relations, for policies designed to rebalance reciprocity in pursuit of geo-economic ambition and for the pursuit of technological leadership within the EU Treaties’ level-playing-field legal foundation. Yet there is a thin line to collisions with international (trade and investment) law, notably where value prioritization, technological preferences or geopolitical concerns are tantamount to discrimination or invite protectionist policy choices. Employment of coercive tools in a unilateral fashion questions the legal default of multilateralism and openness. Persistent strategic diversity within the Union hinders ‘institutional autonomy’, particularly where unanimity voting makes intergovernmentalism the predominant mode of cooperation. The findings shed light on how the evolving geopolitical environment leads to a recalibration of EU external relations between protection and openness, independence and interdependence, unilateralism and multilateralism and power and rules.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"51 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135975680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract International law leaves states and meat-producing corporations full freedom to annually subject billions of animals to extreme suffering during intensive meat production. In the last two decades, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has taken the lead in developing international standards for animal welfare. WOAH alone will not be able to restrict the liberty of international law, given the fact that demanding legal standards may hinder the push to provide nutrients to a growing world population and given global diversity in socio-economic situations, consumer preferences for meat products and cultural values. However, the push to regulate meat production has received new impulses from international institutions that seek to address adverse impacts of industrial animal farming on human interests – in particular, global health, climate change and biodiversity. As yet, this has done little to restrain the freedom under international law to subject farm animals to suffering, but it has expanded the grounds for future global agreements to regulate industrial farming as well as the range of principles and institutions that together constitute the framework within which decisions on industrial meat production that may benefit animal welfare have to be taken.
{"title":"International Law and the Agony of Animals in Industrial Meat Production","authors":"André Nollkaemper","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad049","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract International law leaves states and meat-producing corporations full freedom to annually subject billions of animals to extreme suffering during intensive meat production. In the last two decades, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has taken the lead in developing international standards for animal welfare. WOAH alone will not be able to restrict the liberty of international law, given the fact that demanding legal standards may hinder the push to provide nutrients to a growing world population and given global diversity in socio-economic situations, consumer preferences for meat products and cultural values. However, the push to regulate meat production has received new impulses from international institutions that seek to address adverse impacts of industrial animal farming on human interests – in particular, global health, climate change and biodiversity. As yet, this has done little to restrain the freedom under international law to subject farm animals to suffering, but it has expanded the grounds for future global agreements to regulate industrial farming as well as the range of principles and institutions that together constitute the framework within which decisions on industrial meat production that may benefit animal welfare have to be taken.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135977256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Global Gender Constitutionalism and Women’s Citizenship","authors":"Ramona Vijeyarasa","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48763020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：