Nazareth College About Academics Admissions Campus Life

MOREo Information for...o Prospective Studentso Current Studentso Alumnio Parentso Faculty & Staffo Abouto Academicso Admissionso Campus Lifeo Newso Storieso Facts & Recognitiono Locationo Career Serviceso Support Nazo Majorso Class Listingso Uncommon Coreo Advisemento Registraro Libraryo First-timeo Transfero Graduateo Applyo Visito Tuition & Aido Eventso Athleticso Arts Centero Student Activitieso Residential Life

o Campus Safety Athletics Map Directory A–Z Index QuickLinks

o Astrao Bookstoreo Campus Safetyo Career Serviceso Class Listingso Course Catalogso Faculty & Staffo Financial Aido Google Appso Graduate Serviceso Libraryo MyCourses@Naz Moodleo MyNaz Password Helpo NazNeto Portfolio@Naz (P@N)o Registraro Zimbrao Sign In

Analysis Reports Debate! Book Discussion Editorials About EJIL: Talk!

?

Search

Submit

Economics Facebook Twitter Pinterest

School of Management EXPLORE MAJORS CORE CURRICULUM REQUEST INFO ASK OUR FACULTY APPLICATION PROCESS VISIT CAMPUS

Why Choose Nazareth for Economics?Trickledown or supply-side. Marx or Milton Friedman. The tension

between socialism and capitalism. In our program, economics is

anything but dull. We look at the economic forces that shaped

history and investigate present-day topics such as the challenges

of a global marketplace, the psychology of the stock market, and

the monetary systems in which we live. As they explore economic

models and argue the relative merits of Keynes and Krugman, our

students acquire a foundation for wisdom and leadership in a

global economy.

The economics degree program at Nazareth College thoughtfully

analyzes market forces and their effect on daily life, public

policy, and our success or failure as a society. Rooted in a

liberal arts perspective, this approach helps economics majors

prepare for graduate study in finance, business, law, and related

disciplines, as well as for careers in a variety of fields.

Program Highlights Seminar-style classes and individual mentoring from

professors. Coursework focuses on writing, critical thinking,

communication, technology, and current events. Internship opportunities, which are fairly rare in this

field of study. The option to use the economics major to achieve inclusive

education certification for elementary education (grades onethrough nine) and as a generalist at the middle school level.

Program Options B.A. in Economics B.A. in Economics with Inclusive Early Childhood/Childhood

Education Economics (Minor)

Typical Class ScheduleFreshman

Perspectives - Enduring Questions (PEQ) Science with Lab Credits: 4

Foreign Language Credits: 6 Survey of Computer Applications Principles of Macroeconomics Principles of Microeconomics College Writing I & II Academic and College Success First Year Seminar Applied Calculus or Calculus I

Sophomore Perspectives - Enduring Questions (PEQ) Credits: 12 Electives Credits: 3 Integrative Studies (IS) course Credits: 3 Economics Elective Credits: 3 Intermediate Macroeconomics Intermediate Microeconomics Elementary Statistics

Junior Economics Electives Credits: 6 Electives Credits: 9 Liberal Arts Electives Credits: 9 Integrative Studies (IS) Credit: 6 Experiential Learning (EL) Pathway Health and Wellness

Senior Electives Credits: 24 Economics Electives Credits: 6 Core Milestone Experience Senior Seminar in Economics Economics Comprehensive

Contact Information

Joseph DaBoll-LavoieProfessor, UG Prog Chair & Dir of Econ

585-389-2572

jdaboll6@naz.edu

Smyth Hall 147E

Alumni Spotlight: Mike DeCory '91Vice President of Wegmans Brand

“A lot of schools can teach the science of business, but at

Nazareth I also learned the human side as well. The life skills I

gained—in class with professors, on the tennis team, one-on-one

with my academic advisors—are as imperative to me now as the

theories of supply and demand.”

Example Careers

Financial analyst Insurance agent Economist Lawyer Stockbroker Risk management Public administration Bank officer

Internships/Field Experiences Excellus BlueCross BlueShield The Hartford Financial Services Merrill Lynch CIA Library of Congress

Graduate Schools/Employers Cambridge University Tufts University Syracuse University University of Dayton School of Law Binghamton University Manning & Napier U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Justice Department Contact Connect Visit

Facebook Twitter

Instagram Flickr YouTube

Pinterest 4245 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14618 585-389-2525 web@naz.edu

© 2014 Nazareth College • Copyright/Privacy • Diversity • Student Right to Know • Employment

<a href="https://nazareth.wufoo.com/forms/pxi4tpq0122gtx/" title="html form">Fill out my Wufoo form!</a><a href="https://nazareth.wufoo.com/forms/i-am-a/" title="html form">Fill out my Wufoo form!</a>

Loading...Loading...

This is a preview. The total pagesdisplayed will be limited.

Loading...Loading...

ABOUT CONTACT NEWS & EVENTS GIVING TO THE PRESS

Browse by: S U B J E C T | S E R I E S

BOOKS JOURNALS DISTRIBUTION INFO & SERVICES

Author Events

Margaret F. Brinig and Nicole Stelle GarnettJun 26, 2014 5:00 PM at the University Club of Chicago76 E. Monroe St.Chicago, IL 60603Book event with Margaret Brinig and Nicole Stelle Garnett, the authors of Lost Classroom, Lost Community: Catholic Schools’ Importance in Urban America. Moderated by Fr. Tim Scully (Hackett Family Director, Institute for Educational Initiatives, University of Notre Dame). Sponsered by the Lumen Christi Institute at the University of Chicago.

$30 General/$10 Students

For more information see the Lumen Christi Institute website.

Search Site

Search

Submit

Steven M. GoodmanJun 27, 2014 5:00 PM at the Field Museum1400 S. Lake Shore DriveChicago, IL 60605-2496Please join Field Museum scientist, Steve Goodman, PhD, for a lecture on his new book, Atlas of Selected Land Vertebrates of Madagascar, and its potential as a conservation tool for supporting the unique biodiversity of Madagascar.

For more information see the Field Museum website.

Sharon LoudenJul 4, 2014 7:00 PM at the Chautauqua Institution

Hultquist CenterOne Ames Ave.Chautauqua, N.Y. 14722Sharon Louden, multi-media artist painter, sculptor, and editor of the new collection of essays Living and Sustaining a Creative Life will speak for the the Chautauqua Institution School of Art's Visual Arts Lecture Series.

Gate Pass Required — Purchase at Main Gate Welcome Centerwww.chqtickets.com | (716) 357-6250

Matthew Warner OsbornJul 9, 2014 6:30 PM at the Kansas City Public LibraryCentral Library14 West 10th StreetKansas City, MO 64105Join author Matthew Warner Osborn for a discussion of his new book Rum Maniacs–an insightfulexamination of the medical and societal fascination two centuries ago with heavy drinking and drinkers.

For more information and to register see the Kansas City Public Library events page.

Gordon H. OriansJul 14, 2014 7:00 PM at the University of Washington BookstoreU District store4326 University Way, N.E.Seattle, Washington 98105Gordon H. Orians, author of Snakes, Sunrises, and Shakespeare: How Evolution Shapes Our Loves and Fears, will speak and sign books.

For more information see the University of Washington Bookstore events calendar.

Catharine R. StimpsonJul 17, 2014 Time TBD at the Open Society Institute in New York224 West 57th StreetNew York, NY 10019Catharine R. Stimpson, co-editor of Critical Terms for the Study of Gender, will discuss the book at the Open Society Institute in New York.

For more information see the Open Society Institute website.

FREE E-BOOK OF THE MONTH

Darden Asbury PyronLiberaceAn American BoyGet it for free!About E-books

PUBLISHERS WE DISTRIBUTE

Hirmer Publishers, featured publisherFull list of publishers

CHICAGO BLOG

Lawrence Summers on House of Debt From Lawrence H. Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and president emeritus of Harvard ... Read More

Excerpt: D-Day through French Eyes As World War II continued to rage, and though they yearned for liberation, by late spring 1944, ... Read More

Liberace: our free ebook for June More people watched his nationally syndicated television show between 1953 and 1955 than ... Read More

EVENTS

Book event with Margaret Brinig and Nicole Stelle Garnett, the authors of Lost

Classroom, Lost ... Read More Please join Field Museum scientist, Steve Goodman, PhD, for a lecture on his new book,

Atlas of ... Read More Sharon Louden, multi-media artist painter, sculptor, and editor of the new collection

of essays ... Read More

University of Chicago Press: 1427 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 USA | Voice: 773.702.7700 | Fax: 773.702.9756PRIVACY POLICIES SITE MAP BIBLIOVAULT CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE TURABIAN SCIENTIFIC STYLE AND FORMAT UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Intelligent commentary, curated content, news, reviews, and all thingsdigital, published by the University of Chicago Press

EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International LawHome Archive for category "EJIL Book Discussion"

The Nature of Investor’s Rights under Investment Treaties: A Rejoinder to Martins PaparinskisPublished on October 31, 2013 Author: Anastasios Gourgourinis

Editor’s note: This is the final installment in thediscussion begun last week of Martins Paparinskis’s EJILarticle, “Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New) Law ofState Responsibility“.

Martins’ reply to my comments on his EJIL article highlights anumber of challenging issues regarding the ongoing debate overthe direct or derivative nature of investors’ rights underinternational investment agreements (IIAs). To summarize ourdisagreement: Martins, on the one hand, views the derivativerights approach “as only one of a number of plausible ways ofarticulating international law arguments about investment law”;on the other, I remain strongly reluctant towards this polyphonyof plausible articulations, and rather find that the directrights model is unconvincing.

Martins questions, first, whether the practice of NAFTA Partiesindeed favours the derivative model; second, whetherinternational law provides for causality (or even correlation)between the nature of obligations under treaties and the natureof rights derived thereunder; and, third, whether indeed the HICEEv Slovakia award explicitly adopts the derivative rights model. Byway of rejoinder to Martins’ reply, I will address the firstpoint separately, and the second and third points jointly. Readthe rest of this entry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals, State Responsibility

No Comments

Reply to Howley and HowsePublished on October 24, 2013 Author: Martins Paparinskis I am grateful to Jessica Howley and Rob Howse for theirthoughtful comments. This post replies to each of theirresponses.

My response to Jessica Howley will focus on the first and thirdquestions that both, albeit in different ways, challenge myargument that choice is the right criterion for distinguishingthe third party model from other approaches. In the firstquestion, Howley wonders whether public interest underlyinginternational human rights could not provide a better explanationfor the human rights/investment law distinction than consent. Inthe third question, she identifies the choice of an individual tobecome a rights-holder as also present in the diplomaticprotection model, thus blurring the distinction between thoseapproaches. I am grateful to Howley for raising questions aboutthe limits of third party model and will answer them in turn,after first briefly outlining my general argument.

Law of third parties and choice

It seems to me that one is on fairly safe conceptual and legalgrounds when discussing the tension between elements of inter-State and investor-State dispute resolution in investment treatyarbitration. In my response to Gourgourinis, I sketched someaspects of this tension, and it has been addressed in leadinglegal writings (in particular by James Crawford ((2002) 96 AJIL874, 887-8) and Zac Douglas ((2003) 74 BYBIL 151, 160-94). TheLaGrand judgment of the International Court also provides someguidance on the criteria for identifying the presence ofindividual rights in treaty instruments ([2001] ICJ Rep 466[77]).

My article suggests that that the image of a spectrum ofdifferent expressions of inter-State and individual-Stateelements in the structure of international dispute settlementregimes is right but may be incomplete. A triangle provides amore accurate portrayal of the legal dynamic of investment law.The three corners of the triangle are human rights, diplomaticprotection, and third party rights. International law permitscreation of rights of non-treaty parties under two regimes –rights of individuals and rights of third parties – that are in

many ways as distinct from each other as they are from the inter-State diplomatic protection regime. The distinction between thosemodels is not intuitively clear, but in technical terms the mostdistinctive element of the law of third parties is a requirementof consent as a precondition for the creation of rights (VCLT arts34-37). My thesis is that consent and the choice to provideconsent are instrumental for the law of third parties but not thelaw of human rights and law of diplomatic protection, andtherefore would provide a convenient analytical perspective fordiscussing investment law. Howley questions both aspects of thedistinction, and I will respond to these arguments in thefollowing paragraphs. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

No Comments

Reply to GourgourinisPublished on October 24, 2013 Author: Martins Paparinskis I am very grateful to Anastasios Gourgourinis, Robert Howse, andJessica Howley for their remarks about my EJIL article. I hopethat my responses will enable me to clarify my position (andthinking) on the aspects of my argument with which each commenterhas engaged. Since there is very little overlap between theircomments, I will address them in turn, responding to Gourgourinisin this post and then to Howley and Howse in the next.

Gourgourinis makes a strong argument in favour of derivativerights (which the article calls ‘delegated rights’), suggestingthat (1) State practice favours the derivative model, (2)individual rights of the human rights character derive frommultilateral obligations, and investment law is not multilateralin that sense, and (3) the HICEE v Slovakia award explicitly adoptsthe derivative rights model. I will take the first and thirdargument together, first explaining my basic thesis to ensure

that our arguments do not pass each other like two doomed shipsin storm.

Investment law as progeny of three regimes of international law

My basic thesis is that investment protection law partly borrowsand partly diverges from three different regimes of publicinternational law (international human rights law, law oftreaties on third parties, and inter-State law of diplomaticprotection). Law-makers and adjudicators will conduct the debatewithin the broad contours of the following propositions. Theywill debate the appropriateness of analogies; the content ofparticular rules flowing from analogies; the appropriateness ofthe particular rules and other related rules; and theappropriateness of analogies reconstructed back from those rules,etc. It remains to be seen how the issue will develop, both interms of State practice and arbitral decisions, and doctrinalevaluations. At the moment, each perspective seems to dominateparticular aspects of the system without being excessivelyconcerned about internal inconsistency. The pragmatic ‘withoutprejudice to the broader principle’ practice may continue, or aparticular perspective may gain dominance, or one perspectivecould provide a starting point that is tweaked by introduction ofspecial rules, possibly borrowed from other perspectives. Toavoid any possible doubt, this is not an argument against delegatedrights, but an argument that views delegated rights as only oneof a number of plausible ways of articulating international lawarguments about investment law. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

No Comments

Interpreting Fair and Equitable Treatment within theEvolving Universe of Public International LawPublished on October 23, 2013 Author: Robert Howse

Robert Howse is Professor of International Law at NewYork University Law School.

When a tribunal interprets a treaty it does so not in a vacuum oras an isolated decider, but as an adjudicator embedded in a largeand dynamic universe of public international law—as Bruno Simmaforcefully articulated in his separate opinion in Oil Platforms . Yetin recent years there have been decisions of investor-statetribunals, fortunately not in the mainstream but still muchcommented on, that adopt a much narrower, hide-bound approach tofair and equitable treatment, the most egregiously awful arguablybeing Glamis Gold v. United States, where the tribunal froze the meaningof fair and equitable treatment as the content of the standard ofdiplomatic protection of aliens in the early 20th century. Bytracing the reciprocal influences flowing back and forth betweeninvestment treaty law and other areas of public internationallaw, Martins Paparinksis’s article provides a good antidote tothe misguided thinking behind rulings like Glamis. This thinkingis based upon a number of assumptions. One is that investmenttreaties simply import through fair and equitable treatment aself-contained regime of diplomatic protection, rather than thefair and equitable treatment norm adapting concepts fromdiplomatic protection to a new context of investor protection,which operates not through espousal but direct access to disputesettlement by investors. Second is the strong presumption againstcustomary law having evolved through the thickening jurisprudenceof international and regional courts and tribunals. Third is thevery notion that the law of diplomatic protection, or the minimumstandard of treatment, is a kind of self-contained regimeunaffected by developments in other areas of international law,whether human rights or, for example, various transparency andadministrative fairness-type provisions in multilateral andregional economic treaties. All of these dubious assumptions arein effect challenged by Martins’ rich and textured analysis of

the fair and equitable treatment standard within the largecomplex universe of public international law. As Martins shows,although some treaties may explicitly restrict the kind ofnormative material available for interpretation, in general theambit is defined broadly, if one takes together Article 31 of theVCLT and Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Because fair andequitable treatment is a treaty-based obligation, the normativematerial relevant to defining the standard need not itself havethe status of custom. In any case, it is well established that inthe modern universe of international law there is a dynamicinterplay between custom, conventional law, even soft law. Thisreality makes the Glamis Gold approach seem particularly sterileor arid.

Also worth further thought in the context of Martins’ article isan issue he raised in his exchange with Anthea Roberts in therecent EJIL:Talk! discussion of his book: I agree with Martinsthat one should not lightly have reference to municipal publiclaw as a source for the content of fair and equitable treatment,certainly not as a ceiling. To ensure fair and equitable treatmentof an investor it is not enough that a host state have laws onthe books that appear to be consonant with public law in otherstates. Evaluating the standard set by municipal public law wouldinvolve assessing not only the standard implicit or explicit informal statutes but the actual workings of the system, in otherwords, administrative practice. Also, even between countries suchas the US and Canada there are quite significant differences withrespect to how administrative discretion is controlled byjudicial review and other vital mechanisms. The risk of goingdown the path that Roberts suggests is that the fair andequitable treatment standard could become the lowest commondenominator of public law and administrative practice among acertain select group of states. Another risk is that a host statemight be considered to have discharged its state responsibilityby having a working system of public law with certain formalguarantees, even if the investor is egregiously mistreated in the

process. The fair and equitable treatment standard must, as theword treatment implies, be applicable not only to the laws of thehost state, but also to the specific behavior of the host statetowards the investor in question. Just as with human rights law,investor protection ought to provide relief against exceptionalabuses even within systems of law that are not formally deficient.As Martins shows in his article, public international law as it isevolving in diverse areas provides adequately fertile normativematerial for an evolving international standard of fair andequitable treatment.

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

No Comments

The Nature of Investors’ Rights: A Reply to Martins PaparinskisPublished on October 23, 2013 Author: Jessica Howley

Jessica Howley is partway through a DPhil at Magdalen College, University of Oxford.

In his EJIL article, Martins Paparinskis outlines how the rulesof State responsibility, developed in the interstate context,apply in claims between individuals and States in the field ofinvestment law (p 619). He proposes three alternative views onemight take of the nature of the ‘rights’ accorded to investorsunder investment treaties: that they are ‘direct rights’, similarto those found in the regime of human rights (p 622-623); ‘thirdparty rights’, akin to those accorded by treaty parties to thirdstates under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p624); or ‘delegated rights’, where the individual is an agentexercising rights that belong to their home State (p 625).

Paparinskis details the implications of each approach toinvestors’ rights for various aspects of State responsibility,including for the purposes of reparation, the application ofcircumstances precluding wrongfulness and the implementation ofresponsibility (p 619-620), elucidating the practical effectsthat flow from adopting a particular perspective on investors’rights. He expressly does not seek to reach a definite conclusionon which of these is the correct approach to take (p 626). Hedoes, however, offer some thoughts on the appropriateness ofrelying on the human rights paradigm in the investment context.

While noting the functional similarity between many of the rightsin the investment and human rights fields, Paparinskis argues(and affirms in this EJIL: Talk! post and a forthcoming chapteravailable here) that human rights and investment law differ inthe key respect that investors choose to become investors, withinvestment law protections designed to entice an investor toinvest in a particular State (p 623). Conversely, one falls underthe protection of a given human rights regime not as a matter ofchoice but simply by virtue of being human. This leads the authorto suggest that rights in investment law might be ‘bettercaptured’ by viewing them through the lens of third party rights,rather than from a human rights perspective (p 624).

The purpose of this post is to query the extent to which thechoice of the investor provides a useful way of thinking aboutwhich of the three models of investors’ rights is mostappropriate. Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

No Comments

Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New) Law of State ResponsibilityPublished on October 21, 2013 Author: Martins Paparinskis

I am grateful to EJIL:Talk! for hosting the discussionof my article and chapter. I am privileged to have AnastasiosGourgourinis, Jessica Howley, and Robert Howse as discussants. Inthe following paragraphs I summarise the main arguments made inthe article and the chapter.

The starting point of the argument is that investment law partlyborrows and partly diverges from pre-existing regimes ofinternational law. An interpreter of an investment protectiontreaty is required to determine the degree of similarity anddifference so as to elaborate the meaning of particular terms,broader systemic structures, and underlying secondary rules. Inorder to situate investment protection law within the broaderinternational legal order, an interpreter might draw uponmultiple legal techniques from established legal regimes. Withinthe four corners of international law reasoning, the models ofdirect rights, beneficiary rights, and agency are the mostplausible, relying on techniques drawn from, respectively, thelaw of human rights, law of treaties on third parties, anddiplomatic protection. A firm position regarding the legally mostplausible model will not be taken. Instead, the implications ofrelying on the techniques of those regimes will be spelled out,applying across different branches of international law.

The EJIL article under discussion examines whether and how theinvocation of responsibility by a non-state actor has affectedsecondary rules of state responsibility. The shift from the stateto the investor as the entity invoking responsibility for thebreach of investment treaties seems to have influenced the law ofstate responsibility in a number of distinct ways. The apparentdisagreement about the law of state responsibility may sometimesproperly relate to questions of treaty interpretation, while inother cases rules from an inter-state context are applied

verbatim. In yet other cases, the different perspectives lead toimportantly different conclusions regarding circumstancesprecluding wrongfulness, elements of remedies, waiver of rights,and, possibly, interpretative relevance of diplomatic protectionrules. The forthcoming chapter applies the same analyticalperspective to the law of treaties, examining rules oninterpretation and treaty-making through the lenses of otherregimes of international law. The overall thesis is that theconceptual perspective of plausibly different readings of thegenealogy of foundational structures of investment law is veryimportant, but needs to be applied with subtlety: sometimes allthe perspectives point in the same direction; sometimes they donot; sometimes they do but for very different reasons; and, inany event, a diligent application of such traditional techniquesof legal reasoning as interpretation, resolution of conflicts,and analogies is just as important for reaching the right legalresult.

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

3 Comments

Discussion of Martins Paparinskis’s Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New) Law of State ResponsibilityPublished on October 21, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard This week we will be hosting a discussion of MartinsPaparinskis’s EJIL article, Investment Treaty Arbitration and the(New) Law of State Responsibility, and his related forthcomingchapter, Analogies and Other Regimes of International Law.Martins is a Lecturer in Law at the University College London anda book review editor of the Journal of World Investment and Trade. Hisarticle will be subjected to careful scrutiny this week byAnastasios Gourgourinis (Lecturer, National and Kapodistrian

University of Athens), Jessica Howley (DPhil Candidate, Oxford),and Robert Howse (Professor, New York University). We aregrateful to all four for agreeing to have this discussion here.

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

No Comments

Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Rejoinder to MartinsPaparinskisPublished on August 16, 2013 Author: Frank Berman I don’t think that there’s all that much between MartinsPaparinskis and me. I certainly don’t decry the differencebetween treaty and custom in this field, or the important partthat both play in encouraging investment and in the notinconsiderable task of balancing in that regard the interests ofinvestors and the prerogatives of governments.

But Martins’s responses, valid as they all are, don’t provide ananswer to my question, which is how his analysis helps in solvingthe individual dispute before the individual arbitral tribunal.It may of course be that there will be cases (though I wouldn’tcare to put a statistical probability on their likelihood) inwhich it can be conclusively established that the treaty Partiesdefinitely did decide that what they wanted to have applied wasthe customary law standard (whatever that might be), or that theydefinitely didn’t want that but something else. But in the normalrun a tribunal is confronted with a general standard ofprotection expressed by agreement in treaty language. The choiceis whether that should be taken to mean what it says, or ashidden code for something else, and to that choice the ViennaConvention gives a clear answer in Articles 31(1) and 31(4). Readthe rest of this entry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

Comments Off

A Reply to Anthea Roberts and Federico OrtinoPublished on August 16, 2013 Author: Martins Paparinskis Anthea Roberts puts the argument of my book into broaderinternational law perspective by asking three questions. First,she wonders whether there might be a need to reformulate thecriteria of customary law to make them more realistic. Secondly,she gently chides me for being too hasty in dismissing domesticpublic law arguments. Thirdly, she is interested in the politicsof the human rights analogy of investment law. I will first say afew words about human rights analogies and customary law, andthen explain my position regarding domestic public law.

Human Rights Analogies

In a recent article (‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New)Law of State Responsibility’ (2013) 24 EJIL 617) and in aforthcoming chapter I also address the analogical reasoning ininvestment law, looking at particular case studies in the law ofState responsibility and law of treaties from differentperspectives, including that of human rights law. It seems to methat the major conceptual objection (and here I quote from thechapter, footnotes omitted)

is that the human rights analogy fails to capture thestructural dynamic of the investment protection regime. Inparticular, the grant of legal protection to investors isexplicitly linked with and justified by utilitarianconsiderations of enticing the non-State actor to make therational choice of engaging in an investment activity andtherefore benefiting from protection. The proposition thatthere might be a rational choice to be made to become humanso as to benefit from human rights protection strikes one aspatently absurd from the perspective of human rights law;

conversely, in investment protection law, the question ofwhether, when, and how a claimant becomes an investor is animportant yet conceptually unremarkable jurisdictional boxto be ticked in every dispute.

The idea of choice – and with it, an analogy with the consent-based law of treaties on third parties, rather than human rights– provides a powerful analytical perspective for examiningdifferent approaches in the law of treaties and Stateresponsibility. It is less obvious that differences in teleologyand structure between human rights and investment law posesimilar challenges to arguments by analogy regarding primaryobligations, where peculiarities of either regime may beappropriately incorporated in the process of comparativereasoning regarding particular rules. Read the rest of thisentry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, HumanRights, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

Comments Off

A Reply to Sir Frank BermanPublished on August 15, 2013 Author: Martins Paparinskis I am very grateful to Sir Frank Berman, Anthea Roberts, andFederico Ortino for their wide-ranging observations about mybook. As much as I would like to give an exhaustive reply to eachof them, I could not do justice to all of their comments withoutexceeding the natural limitations of time and space imposed bythe forum. I will therefore focus on a limited number of issues,that either seem to me to pose the most serious challenges to theargument that I make in my book, or to which I have given mostthought. I will respond to Sir Frank Berman’s arguments in thispost, and will address Anthea Roberts’ and Federico Ortino’sarguments in the next post.

Sir Frank Berman raises a number of questions about the style andsubstance of my argument. In particular, he seems doubtful aboutthe practical validity of the distinction between treaty andcustomary rules in the area, and suggests that a clearerdistinction between interpretation and application, the latterconcept opening a wider scope for case-by-case variation, maydispose of my concern about accommodating investment arbitrationin the structure of sources and interpretation of internationallaw. I will address these two issues in turn. Briefly, I believethat the treaty/custom distinction is of considerable practicalimportance. While I entirely agree with everything that Sir FrankBerman says about the distinction between interpretation andapplication – and I would be so bold as to say that I do notignore it in my book – it does not affect my argument that thegreat reliance on earlier arbitral pronouncements suggests aprocess of interpretation and application taking place regardingthe same rule of (general) international law. (Sir Frank alsomakes certain observations about the effect that differentstructures of dispute settlement have on development of law; Iwill address that point in my response to Federico Ortino).

On the Treaty/Custom Distinction

Is it important whether a ‘fair and equitable treatment’ clauseis read as a technical term of reference to custom (or a termthat does not refer to custom as such but that does not precludeit from being taken into account in the interpretative process),or rather a term that neither requires nor permits reliance ongeneral international law? In technical terms, an answer to sucha question would depend on whether the rules of customary law areidentifiably different from those that may be determined byinterpretation of the treaty language. It is relatively easy togive an affirmative answer regarding rules on administration ofjustice, where (as I argue in Chapter 8) the basic principles arewell-established: in particular, a wrongful act of denial ofjustice is complete only when the whole judicial system isexhausted, denial of justice focuses on procedure, and denial of

justice by substance of the judgment is exceptional. It is not atall obvious, to say the least, that an interpretation notinvolving general international law would identify differentrequirements of exhaustion of remedies as a matter of primaryobligation because conduct by a particular organ is concerned, ordraw the distinction between procedural and substantiveunfairness (the fact that most Tribunals do draw thesedistinctions strongly suggests that they are implicitly relyingon customary law). Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Bilateral Investment Treaties, EJIL Analysis, EJIL Book Discussion, Investor-State Arbitration Tribunals

Comments Off

Page 1 of 6123456

Anastasios Gourgourinis Dr Anastasios Gourgourinis is Lecturer in Public InternationalLaw at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Faculty of Law, and Research Fellow at the Academy of Athens.

About EJIL:Talk!Welcome to EJIL:Talk! the blog of the European Journal of International Law.

The Editors of EJIL:Talk! are: Dapo Akande Marko Milanovic Iain Scobbie

Contributing Editors: Diane Desierto Matthew Happold

Christian Tams Antonios Tzanakopoulos Anne Peters

Associate Editor: Sadie Blanchard

More about EJIL:Talk!

From the archives Uses of Force against Civil Aircraft

Published on June 28, 2011 Author: Kimberley Trapp

Subscribe to EJIL: Talk! for email updates

Leave Blank: Don't Change:

Your email:

Lawrence Summers on House of DebtJune 9, 2014

By Kristi McGuire

Search Thi

207.250.21.36 http://

Enter email ad

Subscribe Unsubscribe

From Lawrence H. Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and president emeritus of Harvard University, in the Financial Times:

“Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s House of Debt, despite some tough competition, looks likely to be the most important economics bookof 2014; it could be the most important book to come out of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession. Its arguments deserve careful attention, and its publication providesan opportunity to reconsider policy choices made in 2009 and 2010regarding mortgage debt.”

House of Debt takes a complicated premise—unraveling the threads of the 2008 financial crisis from a tangle of Federal Reserve policies, insolvent investment banks, predatory mortgage lenders,and private label securities—and delivers a clean-cut conclusion:the Great Recession and Great Depression, as well as the current economic malaise in Europe, were caused by a large run-up in household debt followed by a significantly large drop in household spending. Recently, in addition to Summers’s endorsement in today’s Financial Times, the book has been profiled

at the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, and the Economist, among others; Paul Krugman, writing for the NYT, noted that its associated House of Debt blog has “instantly become mustreading.”

How do we move forward and break the cycle? With a direct attack on debt, say Mian and Sufi. More aggressive debt forgiveness after the crash helps, but as they illustrate, we can be rid of painful bubble-and-bust episodes only if the financial system moves away from its reliance on inflexible debt contracts.

To follow developments in global policy at the House of Debt blog, click here.

To read more about the book, click here.

</body>

Recent Comments are closed. Jordan Dan: this is a very good take on the "agreement," but how

can it be full of "commitments" at this time given the language in... – Nov 26

Jordan ok, I still can't type that well and the mistakes were "arbitrary." – Nov 26

Jordan Marko: a very good post. Yet, one also wants to consider the preamble to the ICCPR when interpreting other provisions of the ICCPR. The preamble... – Nov 26

Mohammed tanko I've read your article and I commend you greatly.I'll only add that this agreement wil foster peaceful coexistence between Iran and west. – Nov 26

karine Hi, thank you for your article. You wrote that "This is amutually beneficial deal for all parties" but it seems to me that you... – Nov 26

Jordan In advance of the debate, the ICCPR applies universally (the U.S. Bush-Cheney claims were in serious error -- see

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989099 ) However, those who have... – Nov 25

Authors Ahlborn, Christiane Ahmad, Jawad Akande, Dapo Alexandra Harrington, Frédéric Mégret and Alice Grozdanova & Konstantina Tzouvala, Rumyana Panepinto, More Authors

Archives

What We Do UCP Books Division UCP Journals Division Chicago Distribution Center Bibliovault CRY/PTO/NYM (Distributed) Blog FACEBOOK TWITTER GOODREADS & LIBRARYTHING TUMBLR YOUTUBE VIMEO

Recent Posts The Summer of Hillary Chute Excerpt: The Democratic Surround The detractor and the Donald World Ocean(s) Day Lawrence Summers on House of Debt

Featured Books

Floating Gold: A Natural (and Unnatural) History of AmbergrisChristopher Kemp

Fan Floating Gold on Facebook!

Dreaming in French: The Paris Years of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, Susan Sontag, and Angela DavisAlice Kaplan

Fan Dreaming in French on Facebook!

American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His IdeasJennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen

Fan American Nietzsche on Facebook!

A Naked Singularity: A NovelSergio De La Pava (a writer who does not live in Brooklyn)

Fan A Naked Singularity on Facebook!

The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After ReformMarty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller

See more from Chicago Studies in American Politics here! November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 More Archives

Categories Author Essays, Interviews, and Excerpts Commentary Publicity

o Author Events o Awards o Books for the News o Press Releases o Reviews

Subjects o Anthropology o Art and Architecture o Biography o Biology o Black Studies o Cartography and Geography o Chicago o Classics o Economics o Education

o Fiction o Film and Media o Gay and Lesbian o History o History and Philosophy of Science o Law o Literature o Mathematics and Physics o Medieval and Renaissance o Music o Philosophy o Poetry o Politics and Current Events o Psychology o Reference and Writing o Religion o Sociology

UCP News Uncategorized

Blogs We FollowBookish Types

The Believer Bookslut Conversational Reading Critical Mass The Elegant Variation Galley Cat HTML Giant Jacket Copy Longreads Los Angeles Review of Books (LARB) Maud Newton The Millions New Inquiry The New York Review of Books n + 1 The Paris Review Daily The Point The Quarterly Conversation

Our open all | close all Afghanistan

Announcements and Events Armed Conflict Arms Control Conference Diplomatic Asylum Diplomatic Immunity Editorials EJIL EJIL Analysis EJIL Book Discussion EJIL Reports EJIL Trivia EJIL: Debate! European Union Extradition Featured Human Rights

Indigenous Peoples International Criminal Law

International Economic Law

International Environmental Law International Humanitarian Law

International Law and Domestic Law International Law in Art, Literature, Thought International Legal Profession International Organisations

International Tribunals

Iran Iraq Israel

Journals Jurisdiction

Kosovo Law of the Sea

Libya Mixed Arbitration Natural Resources Occupation Palestine Peace Keeping Piracy Pre-emptive Self Defence Refugee Law Rendition Reservations to Treaties Rwanda Self Defence Self-Determination Sources of International Law

State Immunity State Responsibility State Succession States and Statehood

Study of International Law Syria Terrorism Theory of International Law Torture Treaty Law Universal Jurisdiction Use of Force

Analysis Reports Debate! Book Discussion Editorials About EJIL: Talk!

Authors Patricia Aufderheide / Center for Social Media Beat the Press [Dean Baker] The Becker-Posner Blog Charles Bernstein’s Blog at Jacket2 Us and Them [David Berreby] Terranova [Edward Castronova] Carmel Finley Bob Gluck’s Blog Kieran Healy‘s Weblog Thinking with Shakespeare [Julia Reinhard Lupton] Is That Legal? [Eric Muller] The Subversive Copy Editor Blog [Carol Saller] Dmitry Samarov / Chicago Hack Schengen-alia [Ruben Zaiotti] The Loom [Carl Zimmer]

Academic & Eclectic 3 Quarks Daily A Public Space About Last Night AGNI Artforum Arts & Letters Daily Arts Journal The Awl Bookforum Brooklyn Rail Cabinet

Chicago Review Daily Beast Lana Turner nonsite.org Occupy Writers Rhizome The Rumpus Truthdig Triple Canopy Words without Borders

Fellow Publishers Abbeville Press University of Arkansas Press Beacon Broadside – Beacon Press Brookings Press University of California Press Columbia University Press Cornell University Press Duke University Press University of Georgia Press Harvard University Press University of Hawai‘i Press Illinois Press Book Blog Indiana Historical Society Press Indiana University Press Island Press Blog LSU Press McGill-Queen’s University Press MIT Press University of Michigan Press University Press of Mississippi University of Nebraska Press New York University Press State University of New York Press University of North Carolina Press Oxford University Press Penn Press Penn State Press Stanford University Press University of Tennessee Press Yale University Press

Archives June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011

January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007

June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006

Subscribe to RSS feedSubscribe to Atom feed

University of Chicago Press: 1427 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 USA | Voice: 773.702.7700 | Fax: 773.702.9756Privacy Policies | Site Map | Bibliovault | Chicago Manual of Style | Turabian | University of Chicago

HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist

Search

Sign in / Join

English

Help

Albanian

Basque

Bulgarian

Catalan

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

English

Esperanto

Estonian

Finnish

French

German

Greek

Hindi

Hungarian

Icelandic

Indonesian

Irish

Italian

Submit

Latin

Latvian

Lithuanian

Norwegian

Piratical

Polish

Portuguese (Brazil)

Portuguese (Portugal)

Romanian

Slovak

Spanish

Swedish

Tagalog

Turkish

Welsh

Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Loading...

Crime and Justice, Volume 41: Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative… (edition 2012)

by Michael Tonry (Editor)

Members

Reviews

Popularity

Average rating

Conversations

3 None 2,001,0 None None

Quick Links

Amazon.com (direct)

Abebooks.com

Amazon Kindle (0 editions)

Main page

Work details

Book details

Reviews (0)

Recommendations

Members

Descriptions(0)

Common Knowledge

Cover images

Editions

85

Add to your library

Add to wishlist

▾Book information

Member: UChicagoPress

Title: Crime and Justice, Volume 41: Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective (Crimeand Justice: A Review of Research)

Authors:

Michael Tonry (Editor)

Info: University of Chicago Press Journals (2012), Hardcover, 400 pages

Collections:

Your library

Rating:

Tags: Law

Work details

Crime and Justice, Volume 41: Prosecutors and Politics: A Comparative Perspective (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research) by Michael Tonry

Audible (0 editions)

CD Audiobook (0 editions)

Project Gutenberg (0 editions)

Google Books — Book info

WorldCat

Get thisbook

Local Book Search

All sources

Swap

Ebooks

Audio

— — —

Popular covers

Rating

Average: No

0

all members

▾Members

Recently addedby

lawbod, UWPKarrmann, UChicagoPress

numbers

show all

▾Tags

law (1) new_July_2013 (1)

▾Lists

None

▾LibraryThing recommendations

None

refresh

▾Member recommendations

None.

▾Will you like it?

Loading...

ratings.

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

▾Conversations (About links)

No current Talk conversations about this book.

▾Member reviews

No reviews

▾Published reviews

no reviews | add a review

▾Other authors

» Add other authors

▾Work-to-work relationships

view history

▾Common Knowledge

You must log in to edit Common Knowledgedata.

For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.

Series (with order)

Canonical title

Original title

Alternative titles

Original publication date

People/Characters

Important places

Important events

Related movies

Awards and honors

Epigraph

Dedication

First words

Quotations

Last words

Disambiguation notice

Publisher's editors

Blurbers

Publisher series

Original language

▾References

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English

None

▾LibraryThing members' description

Book description

Haiku summary

▾Book descriptions

No descriptions found.

▾Library descriptions

No library descriptions found.

Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 90,869,811 books! | Top bar: Always visible

Copyright LibraryThing and/or members of LibraryThing, authors, publishers, libraries, cover designers, Amazon, Bol, Bruna, etc. Setting cookie | static: /

22600967

HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist

Search

Submit

Sign in / Join

English

Help

Albanian

Basque

Bulgarian

Catalan

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

English

Esperanto

Estonian

Finnish

French

German

Greek

Hindi

Hungarian

Icelandic

Indonesian

Irish

Italian

Latin

Latvian

Lithuanian

Norwegian

Piratical

Polish

Portuguese (Brazil)

Portuguese (Portugal)

Romanian

Slovak

Spanish

Swedish

Tagalog

Turkish

Welsh

Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Main page

Work details

Loading...

The People's Agents and the Battle to Protect the American Public: Special… (edition 2010)

by Rena Steinzor (Author), Sidney Shapiro (Author)

Members

Reviews

Popularity

Average rating

Conversations

1 None 3,689,591

None None

Quick Links

Amazon.com (direct)

Abebooks.com

Amazon Kindle (0 editions)

Audible (0 editions)

Book details

Reviews (0)

Recommendations

Members

Descriptions(1)

Common Knowledge

Cover images

Editions

Add to your library

Add to wishlist

▾Book information

Member: UChicagoPress

Title: The People's Agents and the Battle to Protect the AmericanPublic: Special Interests, Government, and Threats to Health, Safety, and the Environment

Authors:

Rena Steinzor (Author)

Other authors:

Sidney Shapiro (Author)

Info: University Of Chicago Press (2010), Edition: 1, Hardcover,272 pages

Collections:

Your library

Rating:

Tags: Law

Work details

The People's Agents and the Battle to Protect the American Public: Special Interests, Government, and Threats to

CD Audiobook (0 editions)

Project Gutenberg (0 editions)

Google Books — Book info

WorldCat

Get thisbook

Local Book Search

All sources

Swap

Ebooks

Audio

— — —

Popular covers

Rating

Average: No ratings.

Is this

0

Health, Safety, and the Environment by RenaSteinzor

all members

▾Members

Recently addedby

UChicagoPress

numbers

show all

▾Tags

law (1)

▾Lists

None

▾LibraryThing recommendations

None

refresh

▾Member recommendations

None.

▾Will you like it?

you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

▾Conversations (About links)

No current Talk conversations about this book.

▾Member reviews

No reviews

▾Published reviews

no reviews | add a review

▾Other authors

» Add other authors

▾Work-to-work relationships

view history

▾Common Knowledge

You must log in to edit Common Knowledgedata.

For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.

Series (with order)

Canonical title

Original title

Alternative titles

Original publication date

People/Characters

Important places

Important events

Related movies

Awards and honors

Epigraph

Dedication

First words

Quotations

Last words

Disambiguation notice

Publisher's editors

Blurbers

Publisher series

Original language

▾References

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English

None

▾LibraryThing members' description

Book description

Haiku summary

▾Book descriptions

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0226772020, Hardcover)

Reasonable people disagree about the reach of the federal government, but there is near-universal consensus that it should protect us from such dangers as bacteria-infested food, harmful drugs, toxic pollution, crumbling bridges, and unsafe toys. And yet, the agencies that shoulder these responsibilities are in shambles; if they continue to decline, lives will be lost and natural resources will be squandered. In this timely book, Rena Steinzor and Sidney Shapiro take a hard look at the tangled web of problems that have led to this dire state of affairs.

It turns out that the agencies are not primarily to blame and that regulatory failure actually stems from a host of overlooked causes. Steinzor and Shapiro discover that unrelenting funding cuts, a breakdown of the legislative process, an increase in the number of political appointees, a concurrent loss of

experienced personnel, chaotic White House oversight, and ceaseless political attacks on the bureaucracy all have contributed to the broken system. But while the news is troubling, the authors also propose a host of reforms, including a new model for measuring the success of the agencies and arevitalization of the civil service. The People’s Agents and the Battle to Protect the American Public is an urgent and compelling appeal to renew America’s best traditions of public service.

(retrieved from Amazon Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:37:09 -0400)

▾Library descriptions

No library descriptions found.

Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 90,869,848 books! | Top bar: Always visible

Copyright LibraryThing and/or members of LibraryThing, authors, publishers, libraries, cover designers, Amazon, Bol, Bruna, etc. Setting cookie | static: /

226772020

EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International LawHome Archive for category "Announcements and Events"

Announcements and Events: Hague Academy PositionPublished on November 23, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard The Hague Academy of International Law, founded in 1923, is ahigh level, post-academic institution for the study anddissemination of public and private international law. TheAcademy’s well-known Summer Programme and its Centre for Studiesand Research are held in the Peace Palace in The Hague

(Netherlands) during the months of July, August and September.The Academy seeks to appoint a Publications Manager with copy-preparing/proof-reading responsibilities. The appointee will takethe position of the current Manager who retires on 30 June 2014.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

No Comments

Announcements: UN Courses and Fellowship, New IHL Events Website, Conferences and Calls for PapersPublished on November 16, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard 1. The United Nations Regional Courses in International Law andthe International Law Fellowship Programme are acceptingapplications for participants for their 2014 programmes. Theseunique training opportunities in public international law bringtogether leading scholars and practitioners from across the globeto engage in interactive discussions on a broad range of coresubjects of international law. These courses are intended toenable qualified professionals, in particular governmentofficials and teachers of international law, from developingcountries and countries with emerging economies, to deepen theirknowledge of international law and to engage in dialogue oncurrent international law topics, as well as specific subjects ofparticular interest to the countries in a given region. Moreinformation can be found: for the Regional Courses, here; for theInternational Law Fellowship Programme, here. The deadline forapplications is 1 December 2013.

2. ALMA – Association for the Promotion of InternationalHumanitarian Law has launched a new section of their website –Upcoming IHL Events – Worldwide. This database aims to providegeneral information about all upcoming events related tointernational humanitarian law. The events are divided bylocation (Europe, North America, South America, Middle East andAsia) for an easier search of nearby events. Those who wish to

add an event to the website can email events [at] alma-ihl [dot]org.

3. Call for Papers – International Institutions: Law andGovernance, ASIL IOIG Works-in-Progress Workshop 2014. TheInternational Organizations Interest Group of the AmericanSociety of International Law will hold a works-in-progressworkshop on Friday, February 7th and Saturday, February 8th,2014, at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona StateUniversity in Tempe, Arizona. Authors interested in presenting apaper at the workshop can submit an abstract to David Gartner(David.Gartner [at] asu [dot] edu), Justin Jacinto (jjacinto [at]curtis [dot] com), and Julian Arato (arato.julian [at] gmail[dot] com) by the end of the day on December 2. Abstracts shouldbe a couple of paragraphs long but not more than one page. Papersshould relate to the topic of international institutions andgovernance. Papers should not yet be in print so that authorswill have time to make revisions based on the comments from theworkshop.

4. LSE’s Security in Transition Programme announces aninternational conference and call for papers. The conferencetitle is ‘Law, Justice, and the Security Gap’. The conferencewill be held in London on 21 June 2014 at the London School ofEconomics & Political Science. The world is in the midst of aprofound change in the way that security is conceptualized andpracticed. Up until 1989, security was largely viewed either as‘internal security’ or as ‘national’ or ‘bloc’ security and themain instruments of security were considered to be the police,the intelligence services and the military. This traditional viewof security fits uneasily with the far-reaching changes in socialand political organisation that characterize the world at thebeginning of the twenty-first century. What we call the ‘securitygap’ refers to the gap between our national and internationalsecurity capabilities, largely based on conventional militaryforces, and the reality of the everyday experience of insecurityin different parts of the world. Please send a paper abstract of

300-500 words and a CV to Pippa Bore at p.j.bore [at] lse [dot]ac [dot] uk by 6 January 2014. More information here.

5. The Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy ofSciences, Warsaw Poland, announces the conference ‘InternationalLaw between Constitutionalisation and Fragmentation: the Role ofLaw in the Post-national Constellation’. The conference will beheld on 18-19 November 2013 at the Institute of Law Studies,Polish Academy of Sciences, Staszic Palace, Nowy Swiat 72,Warsaw, Poland. More information is available here.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

1 Comment

Lieber Prize 2014: Call for SubmissionsPublished on November 10, 2013 Author: Iain Scobbie It’s that time of the year again…

The Francis Lieber Prize is awarded annually by the AmericanSociety of International Law’s Lieber Society on the Law of ArmedConflict to the authors of publications which the judges considerto be outstanding in the field of law and armed conflict. Bothmonographs and articles (including chapters in books of essays)are eligible for consideration, as the prize is awarded to thebest submission in each of these two categories.

Read the rest of this entry…

Filed under: Announcements and Events, International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law, Use of Force

No Comments

Announcements: Lieber Code Conference, ICC Moot, Postdoc FellowshipsPublished on November 9, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard

1. On Nov. 21, 2013, Columbia Law School will host a conference“From Gettysberg to Guantanamo: 150 Years of the Lieber Code andthe Law of Armed Conflict”. Drafted by Columbia UniversityProfessor Francis Lieber and signed by President Lincoln in 1863as General Order No. 100, the Lieber Code represented the world’sfirst attempt to codify the laws of war. This conferencecelebrating its 150th anniversary will address the historicalorigins of the Code, its impact on the development ofinternational humanitarian law and its continued significance tomodern challenges in armed conflict. It will feature a lunchkeynote address by Brigadier General Rich Gross, U.S. Army, LegalCounsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Panelistswill include Sir Adam Roberts, University of Oxford; Sir DanielBethlehem, former Legal Adviser to the United Kingdom Foreign &Commonwealth Office; Prof. John Witt, Yale Law School; Prof.Robert Chesney, University of Texas; Dapo Akande, University ofOxford; Maj. Gen. Blaise Cathcart, Judge Advocate General of theCanadian Armed Forces; Jelena Pejic, ICRC; Marten Zwanenburg,Senior Legal Advisor in the Netherlands Ministry of Defense; Dr.Bruce Oswald, Melbourne Law School; Naz Modirzadeh, Harvard LawSchool and Sarah Cleveland, Philip Bobbit and Matthew Waxman ofColumbia Law School. Further details are available at theconference website.

2. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Moot Court Competitionwill take place from 19 until 23 May 2014 in The Hague, theNetherlands. The ‘City of Peace and Justice’ will welcome over250 students from 50 universities and over 30 different countriesfor this large-scale moot court, simulating the proceedings ofthe ICC. The Competition brings together students of diversebackgrounds and cultures from both Member States and Non-MemberStates. The Competition is organized in close cooperation withthe International Criminal Court and will operate in English,Spanish (organized by the Iberoamerican Institute for Peace,Human Rights and International Justice), Arabic and French.Regional rounds will take place in the USA (organized by Pace

University), Russia (organized by Moscow State Law Academy) andChina (organized by China University of Political Science andLaw). More information on the ICC Moot Court Competition can befound at the competition website. For questions or to becomeinvolved, email grotiuscentre [at] cdh [dot] leidenuniv [dot]nl.”

3. Two postdoctoral fellowships at iCourts: Europe and New GlobalChallenges (EuroChallenge). Two 3-year postdoctoral fellowshipsare now available at iCourts, the Centre of Excellence forInternational Courts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen.The fellowships are to be carried out as part of theinterdisciplinary EuroChallenge Project in combination with theoverall iCourts research agenda. More specifically, iCourts islooking for projects which address the broader question of thechanging role of the “European legal-political space in a newglobal order? The global challenge to European markets, humanrights and constitutionalized democracy”. See further here andapply on-line here. EuroChallenge is a major new research projectwith an interdisciplinary approach that addresses the place ofEurope in the context of a rapidly and radically changing globalorder. iCourts, the Danish National Research Foundation’s Centreof Excellence for International Courts, is dedicated to the studyof international courts, their role in a globalizing legal orderand their impact on politics and society. To understand thecrucial and contemporary interplay of law, politics and society,the centre hosts a set of integrated interdisciplinary researchprojects on the causes and consequences of the proliferation ofinternational courts.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

No Comments

Announcements: Call for Papers, ICJ VacanciesPublished on November 2, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard

1. Call for Papers: Subsidiarity in Global Governance. The HertieSchool of Governance has issued a Call for Papers for a workshopon ‘Subsidiarity in Global Governance’ in Berlin on 19 and 20June 2014. The workshop will gather around 25 scholars from law,politics and related disciplines for an in-depth debate over twodays. The organizers welcome proposals from scholars at any level– PhD students at an advanced stage, postdoctoral and more seniorresearchers alike. Details can be found here.2. Law Clerk Vacancies at the International Court of Justice. TheInternational Court of Justice wishes to appoint several LawClerks, each of whom will provide research and other legalassistance to one of the judges of the Court. Details availablehere.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

1 Comment

Announcement: New Journal of World Investment and Trade, Call for PapersPublished on October 19, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard The Journal of World Investment and Trade (JWIT) is under neweditorial responsibility starting with the first issue 2014. Itoperates as a double-blind peer-reviewed journal and focuses onthe law relating to foreign investment relations in a broadsense, including the law of investment treaties, investor-Statedispute settlement, domestic law relating to foreign investment,and relevant trade law aspects, such as services, publicprocurement, trade-related investment measures, and intellectualproperty, both under the WTO and PTAs. JWIT aims to embed foreigninvestment law in its broader context, including its interactionswith international and domestic law, both private and public,including general public international law, internationalcommercial law and arbitration, international environmental law,human rights, sustainable development, as well as domesticconstitutional and administrative law. It is open to doctrinal as

well as interdisciplinary analysis covering the mainstream offoreign investment law and its frontiers. JWIT publishesarticles, notes, case comments, and book reviews, and welcomesproposals for special issues in its fields of interest. Forfurther information, including the full editorial board andinstructions to authors, please visit www.brill.com/jwit.Inquiries and submissions may be sent to jwit {at} mpil {.} de.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

No Comments

Announcements: Essay Competition and Cassese WorkshopPublished on October 13, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard 1. Human Rights Essay Award Competition. This annual competitionsponsored by the Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law atAmerican University Washington College of Law seeks to stimulatethe production of scholarly work in international human rightslaw. The 2014 topic is Persons with Disabilities and International HumanRights Law. Participants have the flexibility to choose any subjectrelated to the assigned topic. The best articles may be publishedin the American University International Law Review. The Academywill grant two Awards, one for the best article in English andone for the best article in Spanish. Deadline: February 1, 2014.Detailed guidelines about the award are available here, orcontact hracademy [at] wcl.american [dot] edu.

2. The Cassese Initiative announces its coming workshop on thetopic “Enforced Disappearance: Challenges to Accountability underInternational Law“, which will be held at the European UniversityInstitute in Florence, on Friday 25 October 2013. This Workshop,inspired by Antonio Cassese’s early dedication to the eradicationof enforced disappearance in Chile, seeks to address some of theproblematic issues raised by the ‘modern’ forms of enforceddisappearance, and evaluate the effectiveness of the existing

international framework. Presentations will be given by leadingexperts in the field. In the active discussion that will followeach presentation, participants will have the opportunity toshare views and experience in both an academic but also in aprofessional context. The Workshop is addressed to professionalsin the fields of human rights and international criminal law, aswell as PhD researchers and students with a demonstratedinterest. Find out more about the programme here. Register here.See also the Cassese Initiative website, Facebook and Twitterpages.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

No Comments

Announcement: International Law Weekend in New YorkPublished on October 6, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard International Law Weekend 2013 – brought to you by the AmericanBranch of the International Law Association – begins on Thursdaynight, October 24, 2013, at the Great Hall of the Association ofthe Bar of the City of New York, 42 West 44th Street, NYC, andcontinues at 9 a.m. Friday and Saturday, October 25-26, at theLincoln Center facilities of Fordham Law School, at 140 West 62ndStreet, NYC. This year’s theme is the “Internationalization ofLaw & Legal Practice.” The opening panel, featuring the UNUndersecretary General for Disarmament debates the new UN ArmsTrade Treaty. The keynote address will be given by internationalarbitrator Donald Donovan, current president of the AmericanSociety of International Law. Panels discussions include: theWell-Being of Children affected by Armed Conflict; Reform of theInter-American Human Rights System, Teaching Law Outside LawSchools; practical panels on private international law;investment arbitration’s standards of review in regard togovernment regulatory conflict ; the revision of the U.S.“Restatement” of Foreign Relations Law; the new ”Regime of Rocks

and Islands” in maritime boundary disputes (see the contest overthe South China Sea); bringing terrorists to justice, and forginga convention on Crimes Against Humanity. Advance Registration,and further information, are available at the website of the ILAAmerican Branch or the International Law Students Associationwebsite. As always, admission is free for all students, faculty,lawyers, and staff from co-sponsoring institutions, as well asall members of the American Branch of the International LawAssociation, the International Law Students Association, and theAssociation of the Bar of the City of New York. Staff members ofthe United Nations and Permanent Missions to the United Nationscan also attend for free. The registration fee remains a modest$75 for the two days combined for all other practicing lawyersand members of the public.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

No Comments

Announcements and Events: Seminar on Foreign Investment in Africa, Investment Law WorkshopPublished on September 28, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard 1. Expert seminar on Foreign Investment in Africa – 10/11 October2013

Professor Makane Mbengue (University of Geneva), Dr. Eric DeBrabandere (Grotius Centre, Leiden University) and Dr. TarcisioGazzini (VU University Amsterdam) organize the 3rd Expert Seminaron Contemporary Perspectives on International Investment Law on10 and 11 October 2013. The topic of this year’s seminar is‘Foreign investment in Africa: Gaining Development Momentum’.Speakers include Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Gareth Austin,Jean-Louis Arcand, Elisabeth Tuerk,Mathabo Le Roux, CarinSmaller, Illy Ousséni, Francesco Seatzu, Kong Ngangjoh Hodu,Andreas Ziegler, Makane Mbengue, Tarcisio Gazzini and Eric DeBrabandere. The Expert Seminar will take place at the University

of Geneva Faculty of Law, 40 Bd. du Pont d’Arve, Room 3050.Attendance is free, but prior registration is necessary (via mailMakane.Mbengue [at] unige [dot] ch).

2. Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop 2014: InternationalInvestment Law and the Global Financial Architecture

The Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop is a forum for discussingfundamental problems of international investment law. (See herefor the most recent conference volume.) The next workshop will beheld 14-15 March 2014. It will focus on the relationship betweeninvestment law and the global financial architecture. Theorganisers invite proposals for original contributions on theseor related topics. The call for papers is here.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

No Comments

Announcements: Job Opportunity with ICRCPublished on September 21, 2013 Author: Sadie Blanchard A research position is available to work on the ICRC – BritishRed Cross cooperation to update the practice collectionunderpinning the ICRC’s study on customary internationalhumanitarian law. Details on the ICRC’s work on customary IHL canbe found here. The job announcement and application form can befound at the British Red Cross website.

Filed under: Announcements and Events

2 Comments

Page 1 of 3123

Sadie Blanchard

Sadie is a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law. In 2012-2013 she was Law Clerk to Judge Charles N. Brower of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, assisting with ICSID and ad hoc investor-State arbitrations. Previously she practiced international arbitration at King & Spalding in Paris. Sadie holds a J.D. from Yale Law School andis a member of the New York bar.

About EJIL:Talk!Welcome to EJIL:Talk! the blog of the European Journal of International Law.

The Editors of EJIL:Talk! are: Dapo Akande Marko Milanovic Iain Scobbie

Contributing Editors: Diane Desierto Matthew Happold Christian Tams Antonios Tzanakopoulos Anne Peters

Associate Editor: Sadie Blanchard

More about EJIL:Talk!

From the archives Let His People Go: Sudan’s Lesson for Secession

Published on January 24, 2011 Author: Timothy Waters

Subscribe to EJIL: Talk! for email updates

Leave Blank: Don't Change: 207.250.21.36 http://

Your email:

Recent Comments Jordan Dan: this is a very good take on the "agreement," but how

can it be full of "commitments" at this time given the language in... – Nov 26

Jordan ok, I still can't type that well and the mistakes were "arbitrary." – Nov 26

Jordan Marko: a very good post. Yet, one also wants to consider the preamble to the ICCPR when interpreting other provisions of the ICCPR. The preamble... – Nov 26

Mohammed tanko I've read your article and I commend you greatly.I'll only add that this agreement wil foster peaceful coexistence between Iran and west. – Nov 26

karine Hi, thank you for your article. You wrote that "This is amutually beneficial deal for all parties" but it seems to me that you... – Nov 26

Jordan In advance of the debate, the ICCPR applies universally (the U.S. Bush-Cheney claims were in serious error -- see http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989099 ) However, those who have... – Nov 25

Authors Ahlborn, Christiane Ahmad, Jawad Akande, Dapo Alexandra Harrington, Frédéric Mégret and Alice Grozdanova & Konstantina Tzouvala, Rumyana Panepinto, More Authors

Enter email ad

Subscribe Unsubscribe

Archives November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 More Archives

Categoriesopen all | close all Afghanistan Announcements and Events Armed Conflict Arms Control Conference Diplomatic Asylum Diplomatic Immunity Editorials EJIL EJIL Analysis EJIL Book Discussion EJIL Reports EJIL Trivia EJIL: Debate! European Union Extradition Featured Human Rights

Indigenous Peoples International Criminal Law

International Economic Law

International Environmental Law International Humanitarian Law

International Law and Domestic Law International Law in Art, Literature, Thought International Legal Profession International Organisations

International Tribunals

Iran Iraq Israel Journals Jurisdiction

Kosovo Law of the Sea

Libya Mixed Arbitration Natural Resources Occupation Palestine Peace Keeping Piracy Pre-emptive Self Defence Refugee Law Rendition Reservations to Treaties Rwanda Self Defence Self-Determination Sources of International Law

State Immunity State Responsibility State Succession States and Statehood

Study of International Law Syria Terrorism Theory of International Law Torture Treaty Law Universal Jurisdiction Use of Force