ESIL Interest Group History of International Law

ESIL Interest Group History of International Law

vrijdag 13 juli 2018

SSRN PAPER: Timothy Louis SCHROER, Multinormativity in Western Arguments Regarding Punishment of the Boxers and their Patrons, 1900-1901 [Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Research Paper Series No. 2018-07]

(image source: Github)

Westerners applied multiple normative frameworks in debating policy toward China in the wake of the Boxer Uprising in 1900 and 1901. They variously claimed that treatment of China should be governed by the rules of international law, a code of honor, Christian teachings, the judgment of history, or ill-defined norms of civilization. At other times, however, Westerners called for violence against the Chinese without any meaningful normative basis. The law and the legal discipline have an imperializing character, as the law conceptually tends to subordinate other normative frameworks to itself and integrate them into its own normative order, dubbed law. The debate concerning China in 1900 illustrates that legal norms were inextricably and complexly entangled with other norms. It suggests that legal historians, if they are to grasp the past in its full richness, should attend to multiple normative frameworks beyond the law, since legal history cannot be divorced from its wider context. Moreover, scholars applying the lens of multinormativity should recognize that, at some point, norms end and a-normative arguments begin.
Read the full paper here.

ARTICLE: Frédéric RIMOUX, Utilité et sécurité dans la pensée internationale de Jeremy Bentham, Revue Française de Science Politique LXVIII (2018), Nr. 3, pp. 539-561

(image source: Cairn)
La pensée internationale de Jeremy Bentham reste méconnue et mal comprise. Parce qu’ils se focalisent à l’excès sur le célèbre essai « A Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace », les commentateurs la rattachent généralement à la tradition libérale en lui rendant un hommage convenu ou en critiquant sa supposée naïveté. Ce faisant, ils méconnaissent certains aspects essentiels de la pensée de J. Bentham, en particulier sa volonté constante de concilier les deux antagonismes jaloux que sont la liberté et la sécurité. J. Bentham a ainsi élaboré une synthèse fragile entre les principes libéraux et les considérations du réalisme politique, qui lui confère une place singulière dans les efforts de définition systématique des conditions de la paix et de la sécurité internationale.
Access the fulltext on cairn.

PODCAST: Did the Peace of Versailles really end the Great War ? (France Culture: La Fabrique de l'Histoire, 29 JUN 2018)

(image source: France Culture)

La Fabrique de l'Histoire, the emblematic history podcast of France Culture, terminates its 2017-2018 season with a special broadcast on the atypical end of the Great War, with Professors John Horn (UC Dublin) and Anne Lehoërff (Lille).

More below.

donderdag 12 juli 2018

CONFERENCE: Après la Guerre (Poitiers: Institut d'histoire du droit/Université de Poitiers, 7 SEP 2018); REGISTRATION BY 31 AUG 2018

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Institut d'histoire du droit of the University of Poitiers organises a one-day conference on the theme Après la guerre.

09h00 : Accueil des participantsAllocutions de MM. Didier VEILLON, Doyen de la Faculté de Droit et des Sciences sociales et éric GOJOSSO, Directeur de l’Institut d’Histoire du Droit (IHD-EA 3320)Présidence de M. le Doyen éric GOJOSSO, Professeur à l’Université de Poitiers
09h30 : La réorganisation du protestantisme français après les guerres de religion (1598-1629)
Laurent Bouchard, Maître de conférences à l’Université de Poitiers09h55 : « Autant en emporte le Sud » : La reconstruction constitutionnelle des états-Unis au sortir de la guerre de SécessionThérence Carvalho, Maître de conférences à l’Université Jean Moulin Lyon III
10h20 : Discussion et pause
10h50 : La levée de l’état de siège à l’issue des conflits armés en France (XIXe-XXe siècle)Sébastien Le Gal, Professeur à l’Université Grenoble Alpes11h15 : Le délicat retour à la vie civile des poilus : la loi du 22 avril 1918 ayant pour objet de garantir aux mobilisés la reprise de leur contrat de travailDidier Veillon, Professeur à l’Université de Poitiers, Doyen de la Faculté de Droit et des Sciences sociales
11h40 : Discussion
12h15 : Déjeuner
après-midiPrésidence de M. le Doyen Didier veillon, Professeur à l’Université de Poitiers
14h15 : La « reconstruction » du droit public européen après la Grande Guerre : institutionnalisme et anti-formalisme en ItaliePaolo Alvazzi del Frate, Professeur à l’Université Rome III14h40 : Le destin d’une institution après la guerre au XXe siècle : la Chambre des Avocats de Slovénie après la Première et la Seconde Guerre mondialeKatja Skrubej, Professeur à l’Université de Ljubljana15h05 : La guerre franco-thaïlandaise de 1941 et la reconnaissance du protectorat de Luang-PrabangEric Gojosso, Professeur à l’Université de Poitiers, Doyen honoraire
15h30 : Discussion et pause
16h00 : La persistance des codes fascistes à l’avènement de la République italienneElio Tavilla, Professeur à l’Université de Modène et Reggio Emilia16h25 : Le système judiciaire en Slovénie après la Seconde Guerre mondialeJanez Kranjc, Professeur émérite de l’Université de Ljubljana, Doyen honoraire
16h50 : Discussion17h30 : Fin du colloque

Practical information
Free registration with Karine BOUHIER ( or +33 5 49 45 47 70)
43 Place Charles de Gaulle
Building E9TSA 81100
86073 Poitiers Cedex 09

woensdag 11 juli 2018

SSRN PAPER: Jutta BRUNNÉE & Stephen J. TOOPE, International Law and the Practice of Legality: Stability and Change

(image source: SSRNBlog)

Drawing on the practice-turn in constructivism and in international relations (IR) theory more generally, our interactional law framework provides a counterpoint to the largely static accounts of international law that still prevail in the interdisciplinary literature. We argue that a particular approach to managing stability and change is inherent in, and indeed characteristic of, legality and the rule of law in international as in domestic law. Therefore, to get at law’s distinctiveness, and to understand the specifically legal interplay between stability and change, one must examine law’s internal structure. Furthermore, legality must actually be practiced. For example, the conclusion of a treaty is often just the beginning of a long law-building process – the document alone ensures neither stability nor change in law. Finally, a focus on internal traits and practices of legality allows full consideration of the formal sources of international law as well as the so-called soft norms that are shaping international interaction involving an ever-wider range of actors. Our “interactional law” framework places particular emphasis on what we call the “practice of legality.” We argue that this concept is central to understanding how law can both enable and constrain state actions, and why international law is a distinctive language of justification and contestation. In turn, the focus on stability and change is helpful because it directly confronts some of the persistent doubts and assumptions about international law, in particular in relation to international politics. Our work is animated by the intuition that the dominant views in IR and international law scholarship underestimate international law’s capacity to mediate stability and change, in part because they focus on the surface of law (treaties, statutes etc.) and external factors (interests, enforcement). They neglect the deeper structure of what makes norms law, and the distinctive practices that account for its relative stability and its capacity for change.
Read the full paper here.

donderdag 5 juli 2018

ARTICLE: Nineteenth Century Arbitrators’ Powers—Has There Been Any Progress to Date? The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals XVII (2018), Nr. 1, 217-235

(image source: Brill)

Investment arbitrators’ authority has been a focus of attention today, e.g. regarding the extent of their powers to interpret and apply the law, to conduct arbitral proceedings, to dissent from their fellow co-arbitrators, and with regard to their duty to be impartial and independent. Two hundred years ago, practitioners, arbitrators and states confronted similar challenges, and through legal doctrines, treaties and practices a path was laid out for future generations of practitioners and arbitrators, where clear legal lines were drawn to distinguish between arbitrators’ procedural and substantive powers and their duties with regard to each of them. The consent and sovereignty of states were duly deferred to by arbitrators and umpires, limiting their job to settle a case. Thus, arbitrators had the duty of impartially interpreting and applying the law of nations, i.e. the natural law, and to deliver a final and binding award. Arbitrators were not bound by precedents, and if they made an unjust or unfair decision, beyond the law, countries could refrain from complying with it, which limited arbitrators’ interpretive powers. In conclusion, not much has changed to date with regard to the procedural powers given to arbitrators. The authority delegated to them by states was to strictly settle the case; no power to develop the law was ever given, which still applies now. Hence, the only important change that has been introduced today is that of claiming the so-called inherent power to help in the development of investment law, which is being driven mainly by arbitrators, and not by states.
On the author:
 Professor of International Economic Law, Externado University of Colombia. Sole practitioner in trade and investment areas involving local regulation
More information with the publisher.

woensdag 4 juli 2018

CONFERENCE REPORT: The Parisian peace treaties (1919-1920) and the emergence of modern international law (JHIL/Tilburg University, 17 May 2018) (by Prof. dr. Miloš Vec/Univ. Vienna-IMW)

Prof. dr. Miloš Vec (Univ. Vienna/IMW) published a conference report on the JHIL symposium "The Parisian Peace Treaties (1919-1920) and the emergence of modern international law (see earlier on this blog). The text appears in today's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, nr. 152, p. 3 and can be read here above, by clicking on the image.