BOOK: Claus KRESS, Stefan BARRIGA (eds.), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge: CUP, 2016, 1488 p. ISBN 9781107015265, USD 350

(image source: blogger)

Cambridge University Press published The Crime Of Aggression: A Commentary, edited by Claus Kress (Köln) and Stefan Barriga (UN). Some contributions in this prestigious collection approach the matter from a historical point of view.

Table of contents (vol I):
Claus Kreß, Introduction: the crime of aggression and the international legal order
Part I. History 
2. Carrie McDougall, The crimes against peace precedent
3. Kirsten Sellars, The legacy of the Tokyo dissents on 'crimes against peace'
4. Thomas Bruha, The General Assembly's definition of the act of aggression
5. Nicolaos Strapatsas, The practice of the Security Council regarding the concept of aggression
6. Dapo Akande, Antonios Tzanakopoulos, The International Court of Justice and the concept of aggression
7. James Crawford, The International Law Commission's work on aggression
8. Roger S. Clark, Negotiations on the Rome Statute (1995–1998)
Part II. Theory 
10. Florian Jeßberger, The modern doctrinal debate on the crime of aggression
11. Astrid Reisinger Coracini, Pål Wrange, The specificity of the crime of aggression
12. William Schabas, Aggression and international human rights law
Part III. Crime of Aggression under Current International Law 
14. Claus Kreß, The state conduct element
15. Roger S. Clark, Individual conduct
16. Roger S. Clark, General principles of international criminal law
17. Stefan Barriga, Niels Blokker, Entry into force and conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction: cross-cutting issues
18. Niels Blokker, Stefan Barriga, Conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction based on Security Council referrals
19. Stefan Barriga, Niels Blokker, Conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction based on state referrals and proprio motu investigations
20. Helmut Kreicker, Immunities
21. Pål Wrange, The crime of aggression, domestic prosecutions and complementarity
22. Eleni Chaitidou, Franziska Eckelmans, Barbara Roche, The judicial function of the pre-trial division
23. Erin Pobjie, Victims of the crime of aggression
Part IV. Crime of Aggression and National Law 
25. Elisa Hoven, Germany
26. Andres Parmas, Estonia
27. Svetlana Glotova, Russia
28. Roger O'Keefe, United Kingdom
VOLUME II
30. Nina H. B. Jørgensen, Asia
31. Astrid Reisinger Coracini, (Extended) synopsis: the crime of aggression under domestic criminal law
32. Astrid Reisinger Coracini, Selected national laws and regional instruments on the crime of aggression
Part V. Crime of Aggression and the Future World Order
Section 1. Actors' Views 
34. Zhou Lulu, China
35. Edwige Belliard, France
36. Susanne Wasum-Rainer, Germany
37. Narinder Singh, India
38. Djamchid Momtaz, Esmaeil Baghaei Hamaneh, Iran
39. Roy Schöndorf, Daniel Geron, Israel
40. Ichiro Komatsu, Japan
41. Young Sok Kim, Republic of Korea (South Korea)
42. Rolf Einar Fife, Norway
43. Gennady Kuzmin, Igor Panin, Russia
44. Andre Stemmet, South Africa
45. Christopher Whomersley, United Kingdom
46. Harold Hongju Koh, Todd F. Buchwald, United States
47. Namira Negm, Egypt
48. Noah Weisbord, Civil society
Section 2. Scholarly Reflections 
50. Jeff McMahan, Unjust war and the crime of aggression
51. Frédéric Mégret, What is the specific evil of aggression?
52. Jens David Ohlin, The crime of bootstrapping
53. David Scheffer, Amending the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute
Benjamin B. Ferencz, Epilogue: the long journey to Kampala - a personal memoir 

1. Kirsten Sellars, World War I, Wilhelm II and article 227: the origin of the idea of 'aggression' in international criminal law 

9. Larry May, Just war theory and the crime of aggression 

13. Leena Grover, Interpreting the crime of aggression 

24. Ksenija Turković, Maja Munivrana Vajda, Croatia 

29. Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Arab world 

33. Marcel Biato, Marcelo Böhlke, Brazil 

49. Martti Koskenniemi, 'A trap to the innocent…' 

(source: Multipol)

CALL FOR PAPERS: Evaluating the ‘Turn to History’ in International Law - ESIL CONFERENCE 2017 (Naples, 7-9 Sep 2017); DEADLINE 15 MAR 2017

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

On the occasion of the ESIL 13th Annual Conference (Naples, 7-9 September 2017) the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law hereby invites submissions, in English or in French, for its annual Workshop.

Call for Papers

During the past two decades the history of international law has evolved from a relatively marginal enterprise into a core professional concern and, in certain fields, a controlling vocabulary. The phenomenon, which is often captioned as a “turn to history”, is marked both by an exponential growth in publications and activities (journals, conferences, interest groups, blogs) and a re-invention of historical work as mode of critical analysis. One could begin to list several characteristics of the turn to history: the move away from trans-historical evolutionary accounts towards global, micro-, and subaltern histories; critiques of Eurocentrism; the emergence of histories of sub-fields of international law; socio-historical accounts of the international law profession; a renewed interest in archival work; an unprecedented interest in methodological questions; the role of historical accounts in judicial decisions; and so on. The purpose of the Workshop of the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law is to trace these disciplinary developments and evaluate their impact on contemporary international law scholarship and practice.

In this context, the IGHIL invites submissions by scholars working within the fields of international law, history, and politics on the following inter-related themes:

·       The impact of the historical turn on the methods of international legal history

·       The impact of the historical turn in sub-fields of international law (e.g. human rights, international criminal law, diplomatic history etc)

·       The impact of the historical turn on evaluating the historical function of international courts and tribunals

·       The impact of the historical turn on Eurocentrism

·       The impact of global, micro, subaltern, and other histories on international law historiography

Each submission should include

a)     An abstract of no more than 400 words;

b)     The intended language of presentation;

c)     A short curriculum vitae containing the author’s name, institutional affiliation, contact information and e-mail address.

Abstracts must be submitted no later than 15 March 2017 to esilighil@gmail.com on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Interest Group, which shall collectively supervise the blind peer-review process of the abstracts. Applicants will be notified on the outcome of the selection process by 30 March 2017.

Selection will be based on scholarly merit and with regard to producing an engaging workshop, without prejudice to gender, seniority, language or geographical location. Please note that the ESIL Interest Group on the History of International Law is unable to provide funds to cover the conference registration fee or related transport and accommodation costs.

The IG currently investigates publication possibilities for selected abstracts. The European Society of International Law has its own SSRN Paper series for every conference or research forum (http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/82), which can maximise the visibility of your research.

See also ESIL website.

JOURNAL: Journal of the History of International Law/Revue d'histoire du droit international: advance articles, Jan-Feb 2017

(image source: Brill)

The Journal of the History of International Law/Revue d'histoire du droit international published advance articles online:

- The Forgotten Genocide in Colonial America: Reexamining the 1622 Jamestown Massacre within the Framework of the UN Genocide Convention (John T. Bennett)
- Imperial Colonialism in the Genesis of International Law – Anomaly or Time of Transition? (Paulina Starski & Jörn Axel Kämmerer)
- Piracy and Empire: The Campaign against Piracy, the Development of International Law and the British Imperial Mission (Michael Mulligan)
- Beyond the Myth of a Non-relationship: International Law and World War I (Oliver Diggelmann)

More information at Brill's Books and Journals Online.

CONFERENCE REPORT: International Law and the Long Nineteenth Century (University of Leuven, November 24-25, 2016) by Ana Delić, Tilburg University

(Image source: F. Dhondt)

Leading scholars as well as junior researchers met in the historic faculty of Leuven University to discuss international law in the long nineteenth century. The event began with a warm welcome by the university’s dean, Prof. Bernard Tilleman who revealed a most interesting anecdote for the international legal historians assembled: the Peace of Versailles had obliged Germany to restore the library of the university. This was followed by warm welcome addresses by Prof. Randall Lesaffer and Dr. Inge van Hulle, the organizers of this well-orchestrated event.

Day One

Panel One: The Eighteenth-Century Fall-Out of Nineteenth-Century International Law (Chair: Randall Lesaffer)

Member of the International Court of Justice, James Crawford considered the basis on which France participated in the Congress of Vienna, the status of Napoleon during the Hundred Days and the legal basis for French responsibility for war damages resulting from the Hundred Days. Crawford eloquently argued that the Bourbon dynasty was legitimized by the prevailing monarchic theory of sovereign power. On the other hand, the status of Napoleon during the Hundred Days was less clear. Certainly, he was not a head of state and as such the basis of reparation for damages incurred by France during this period was discussed on the basis of the theory of responsibility.

Camilla Boisen argued that Edmund Burke bridged the two concerns of international law: authority and enforcement. It was Burke who provided the conceptual scope needed to resolve the issues of enforcement by prescribing specific common law foundations, binding the legal and the moral in international law and presenting it as domestic law.

Inge van Hulle explored a case-study: the legal connections and regimes that developed between British imperial agents and indigenous African communities living in West Africa in the period prior to the Scramble. Anglo-African international relations initially developed on the basis of mutuality and relative equality between parties, but simultaneously, there were imperial legal techniques as well(e.g. extraterritorial jurisdiction, anti-slave trade treaties, the extension of protection to African communities).

(image source: F. Dhondt)

Panel Two: Neutrality (Chair: Inge Van Hulle)
Frederik Dhondt’s discussed how Belgium’s compulsory neutrality  of the 1810 to the 1830s was just one out of multiple tools to guarantee ‘le repos de tous’ and in reality was mostly superficial. Belgium’s compulsory neutrality arose out of a particular socio-historical context –the expansionist and revisionary stance of Napoleon III- and resulted in an interesting reception, including  the view of it as an economic advantage, a legitimation of colonialism, and foremost as a threatened status.

Shavana Musa examined the law of neutrality focusing on the conflicts during the Latin American Wars of Independence. The role of neutrality was discussed as the means of enhancing imperial and commercial power, as a peace-making tool and as a body of law that provided individual (justiciable) rights within the international sphere.

Viktorija Jakimovska’s discussed how throughout the Greek War of Independence, Great Britain generally avoided being dragged into a war but it eventually wished to influence the outcome of the conflict. From 1826-1827, Britain failed to adhere to the essentialia neutralitatis notwithstanding the fact that it never officially renounced the neutrality of its conduct.

Panel Three: Historiography of International Law (Chair: Frederik Dhondt)
 Miloš Vec’s pinpointed key historiographic trends of the nineteenth-century including sources of international law, the conception of the public law of Europe, the so-called shift to a so-called global international law, the regulation of warfare and new technologies around 1900, and state practice.

Jan Lemnitzer examined how the 1850s was a crucial decade in transforming the system of the European law of nations into a universal system of international law. The proliferation of multilateral law-making treaties with the Declaration of Paris in 1856, the growth of international trade, and the rise of independent Latin American states resulted in further contacts between European and non-European states. However, the rise of exclusion in international law was exemplified by the spread of detailed rules for ‘civilized war.’

Day Two

Panel One:  Professionalization and International Law (Chair: Gabriela Frei)

 Stephen Neff discussed how the Darwinian revolution gave rise to American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan’s three-fold categorisation of human societies as savage, barbarous and civilised. This found a reflection in the international-law writing of James Lorimer buttressed by imperialistic policies of the European states and, generally, a hierarchical outlook on the part of international lawyers. Evolutionary thought also influenced a revival of natural-law modes of thought as the only acceptable normative regulation of relations between civilised and savage states. In stark opposition to the evolutionary scheme was diffusionism exemplified by Herbert Spencer’s theory of a general progression from militaristic to industrial modes of life. Diffusionism did not gain much traction with nineteenth century international lawyers.

Vincent Genin analysed how the Institut de Droit International (founded in 1873) represents the first major step in the institutionalization of the discipline. The speaker  discussed how in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the IDI juggled between its self-affirmed role as the ‘public conscience of the civilized world’ versus historic tides of nationalism, the multiplication of conflicts and colonial rivalries.

Ana Delić discussed the formative interactions between comparative law and private international law during the modern period. Comparative law was instrumental to modern private international law in the civil law and common law traditions in three ways: 1) scholars studied private international legal approaches comparatively; 2) the comparative approach was a key aspect of preliminary materials aiding in private international law-making; and 3) courts relied on a comparative study of conflicting rules in order to assess which is the applicable law or jurisdiction.

(image source: F. Dhondt)

Panel Two: Empire and the Periphery in the Nineteenth Century (Chair: Camilla Boisen)
Andrew Fitzmaurice explored the standing of non-European nations in the work of the nineteenth century jurist Sir Travers Twiss. Archival materials were presented which painted a colourful picture of Twiss’ personal life, including his marriage to a prostitute. This union eventually destroyed his career. In terms of Twiss’ legacy to international legal history, he had advocated the view that non-European states (including China, Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and the ‘African Slave-states’) were equals with European powers in the law of nations. His view sprung not from humanitarian concerns but from a concern for the duties (and not rights) of these nations.

Stefan Kroll discussed the Shanghai International Settlement (1863-1943), a zone within the area of Shanghai which was detracted from the authority of Chinese rule, and which was controlled by the self-government of foreign merchants (the Municipal Council). While the mixed court was expected to apply Chinese norms, in reality, foreign norms and judicial practices were being introduced. The Su bao-case (1903) illustrates the mixing of legal systems within the merchant court. This case concerned political radicalism against the Chinese government.

Luigi Nuzzo presented an Italian history of international law, focusing on Pasquale Stanislao Mancini and his pragmatic approach to international law. Mancini’s imprint on international law is exemplified by his insistence on the principle of nationality but his legacy has not been given its proper due. Analysing forensic memories, legislative deeds, parliamentary speeches, editorial projects rather than doctrinal works provides further food for thought with regards to his contribution.

Panel Three: Individuals and International Law (Chair: Andrew Fitzmaurice)
Gabriela Frei examined the biography of Sir William Jones, a judge at his Majesty’s supreme court of judicature at Fort William, the citadel of Calcutta in Bengal, and a well-known orientalist of the eighteenth century. Jones also wrote the first English translation of Hindu and Muslim laws, and thus made those texts available to the Western world. He believed that only local laws would allow a basis for a fair and just legal system. The paper also discussed the multiple legal systems co-existing at this period in Bengal, which developed legal standards for the commercial enterprise of the East India Company.

(image source: F. Dhondt)

Raphael Cahen retraced the beginning of the Mahmoud Ben Ayed case (1855-1858) through an examination of documents from the archives of Joseph Marie Portalis, a famous judge and diplomat, who had been charged to administer the case. This case involved the extradition of Mahmoud Ben Ayad from France back to Tunisia. Ben Ayad, a famous Caïd and minister of commerce, was charged with embezzlement of state funds.

Raymond Kubben analyzed the conception of statehood within international legal textbooks of the long nineteenth century. The definition of the state in the early period were varied and typically reverted to abstract Roman law or philosophical concepts such as civitas or communitas perfecta. Over the course of the nineteenth century, textbooks would specify the legal concept, slowly forming definitions akin to the one in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

CALL FOR PAPERS: Rethinking the World Order: International Law and International Relations at the End of the First World War, Oxford, 31 Aug-1 Sep 2017 (DEADLINE 31 MAR 2017)

(image source: Rethinking the World Order)

The horrors of the Great War and the desire for peace shaped scholarship in International Law and International Relations (IR) during the late 1910s—a stimulating time for both disciplines. Scholars observed and analysed political events as they unfolded but also took an active part, as governmental advisors or diplomatic officials, in devising the new international order. The Paris Peace Conference and the subsequent birth of the League of Nations as well as the Permanent Court of International Justice served as testing grounds for new legal and political concepts. The end of the First World War was in many ways a milestone for both disciplines, prompting scholars to reflect on the consequences of the war on society, politics, and the world economy. How could another world war be avoided in the future? How could states be held accountable for violations of international law? What were the preconditions for peaceful international governance? These questions led to pioneering research on issues such as arbitration, sanctions, revision of treaties, supra-national governance, disarmament, self-determination, migration, and the protection of minorities. At the same time, the study of International Law and IR also advanced in terms of methodology and teaching, including new professorships, journals, conferences and research centres.
A century later, it is a good moment to reflect upon disciplinary histories and revisit some of the theoretical and practical debates that shaped the period from 1914 to 1945. The workshop conveners are particularly (but not exclusively) interested in the following research questions:

• Was the First World War a watershed moment for the development of International Law and IR?
• Which were the key debates in both disciplines? And how can they be re-interpreted today?
• What were the connections and/or dividing lines between the two disciplines?
• Did International Law and IR evolve similarly across different countries?
• Who were the principle actors, both individuals and institutions, in the respective fields?
• Which role did International Law and IR respectively play in shaping ‘real-world’ policy? And to what extent were theoretical developments shaped by political events?
• How did ideas float between academia and politics?
• How successful were non-governmental organisations—such as academic societies, arbitration clubs, political pressure groups, League of Nations clubs, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), etc.—in achieving their goals?

The two-day interdisciplinary workshop will be held at the European Studies Centre (ESC) at St Antony’s College, Oxford from 31 August to 1 September 2017. We invite abstracts from early career researchers and advanced postgraduate students in history, law, IR and other related disciplines to share their research in a multi-disciplinary environment. By facilitating this exchange we hope to open new avenues of research and to encourage new approaches to the history of both disciplines. We are planning to have six panels, one keynote address, and an open plenary session that allows all participants to pitch their research projects.

Please submit your proposal (including a title, 300 words abstract, and a short bio) to jan.stoeckmann@new.ox.ac.uk by 31 March 2017. Successful applicants will be notified by 30 April 2017. We are currently working on logistical details, including reimbursements and publication plans, and will keep you updated. For updates see: www.rethinkingtheworldorder.wordpress.com.

Contact:

Dr Gabriela Frei
British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Junior Research Fellow in History
Jesus College, Oxford
gabriela.frei@jesus.ox.ac.uk 

Jan Stöckmann
DPhil Candidate in History
New College, Oxford
jan.stoeckmann@new.ox.ac.uk
www.rethinkingtheworldorder.wordpress.com

ESIL RESEARCH FORUM GRANADA: Workshop "Neutrality in the History of International Law" (30 Mar 2017)

(image source: ESIL/SEDI)

The Interest Group History of International Law of the European Society of International Law is delighted to announce the line-up for this year's workshop at the Research Forum in Granada (Spain), which will take on 30 March 2017.

We received a copious number of abstracts in response to our call. After a double blind peer review, the following submissions have been selected:

L’intervention d’humanité dans la Guerre des Boxeurs (drs. Paul Bourgues/ATER at the Université de Grenoble)
Contested Turkish Neutrality in International Law (Hakan Gungor/Turkish National Education)
Neutrality in the United Nations – The Case of Austria (Prof. dr. Peter Hilpold/Professor at the Universität Innsbruck)
International Legal Thought : A Legal Project and an Integrative Approach (Dr. PD Thomas Kleinlein/Privatdozent at the Universität Frankfurt,  Dr. David Roth-Isigkeit-Berlin/Research Fellow at the Excellenzcluster Normative Orders/Frankfurt)
Questioning Territory’s Contribution to Neutrality (dra. Gail Lythgoe/University of Glasgow)
Ethiopia, Neutrality and the First World War (Jakob Zollmann/Research Fellow Global Public Law at the WZB Berlin)

Organisation: Interest Group Steering Committee.

Ignacio de la Rasilla y del Moral (Associate Professor, Brunel)
Frederik Dhondt (Assistant Professor, VUB/Visiting Professor, UA/Fellow, FWO-UGent)
Thomas Skouteris (Assistant Professor, American University in Cairo)
Inge Van Hulle (Assistant Professor, Tilburg)

We of course regret not having being able to retain all excellent and informative abstracts. We nevertheless encourage all applicants to assist to the scientific event in the marvellous historical city of Granada and warmly welcome any further engagement.

Registration for the event here.

CALL FOR PAPERS Training, Ideas and Practices. The Law of Nations in the Long Eighteenth Century (Paris, 18-19 May 2017); DEADLINE 20 FEBRUARY 2017

CALL FOR PAPERS

Training, Ideas and Practices. The Law of Nations in the Long Eighteenth Century

(Paris, 18-19 May 2017)

The purpose of this conference is to explore the roots of international law and the various concepts related to the “law of nations” by looking at the legal language of diplomats and foreign offices in Europe during the long eighteenth century. The conference also aims to render the variety and complexity of specific mechanisms through which the law of nations was applied for diplomatic use, to explore social and cultural aspects, and to investigate the practical questions that diplomats frequently faced (N. Drocourt & E. Schnakenbourg (eds.), Thémis en diplomatie, PURennes, 2016).

The relationship between diplomacy and the law of nations is at best ambiguous. On the one hand, the law of nations seems to be a hybrid product of philosophical concepts and a digest of diplomatic practice. Lawyers have difficulty resisting the temptation to write a purely academic or genealogical history of the law of nations. The frequent invocation of authors such as Vattel as an authority seems to support this (P. Haggenmacher  & V. Chetail (eds.), Vattel’s International Law from a XXIst Century Perspective, Brill, 2011). On the other hand, interaction in negotiations involves a lot more than invoked legal principles. A thorough analysis of diplomatic practice often reveals implicit rules within diplomacy as a social field  (P. Bourdieu, Sur l’Etat, Seuil, 2012). Legal arguments are a part of this microcosm, but geopolitical determinants and state interests can bend and bow the use of legal language.

One of the main issues of this conference will be  whether law of nations theories influenced diplomatic practice and at the same time whether diplomatic practice altered traditional law of nations concepts. Through fruitful dialogue between young legal historians, historians of political thought and historians of politics from France, Germany and other parts of Europe, we would like to explore and investigate three different scenarios in which law of nations theories emerged both in the practice and the doctrine of diplomacy:

1)      Training of diplomats

Was the law of nations the basis of diplomatic education? Did diplomats also receive specific, in-house, foreign affairs training? Was it only theoretical or also based on practice and experience? Was there already a form of professionalisation of diplomats, especially in view of later developments in the 19^th century (L. Nuzzo & M. Vec (dir.), Constructing International Law – The Birth of a Discipline, V. Klostermann, 2012)? Finally, to what extent can we envisage a common European diplomatic culture?

2)      Circulation of ideas and diplomatic networks

What was the legal and intellectual background of the various traités du droit des gens? To what extent were legal expertise (G. Braun, La connaissance du Saint-Empire en France du baroque aux Lumières (1643-1756), De Gruyter, 2010) or legal rhetorics pragmatic tools used in everyday politics? For whom did thinkers such as Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) write their treatises? The sovereign? Legal advisers? Public opinion?  If the law of nations formed a kind of a common European diplomatic culture, how did it spread throughout Europe? Can we identify the same use in various diplomatic flows of the time? How were diplomatic networks organised?  Can we find examples of specific territories - such as the principalities of Walachia and Moldova, between the Ottoman Empire and the “European” powers – functioning as kinds of “diplomatic hubs”? 

3)      Transformation

Is the diplomatic habitus of the Vienna Congress a turning point?  Where did the transition from the 18^th to the 19^th century take place, both in theory and in practice? How important was the impact of Enlightenment and French Revolutionary thought (M. Bélissa,  Fraternité universelle et intérêt national, 1713-1795, Kimé, 1998)? How far can we find echoes in diplomatic culture and correspondence?

We kindly invite young scholars (up to 6 years after PhD) to present their new research within French-German and European perspectives. All applications must be sent by 20 February 2017 with a short CV (5 to 10 lines) and a proposal of 400 words to diplomacyconference2017@gmail.com. Results will be communicated by 15 March 2017.  This conference has received the generous support of the CIERA (Centre interdisciplinaire d'études et de recherches sur l'Allemagne, www.ciera.fr) as a colloque junior and will take place on the 18^th (afternoon) and 19^th (morning) of May 2017.  

Papers can be presented in English, French or German. A peer-reviewed publication of the proceedings is envisaged.

Organising Committee

Raphael Cahen (Orléans/VUB-FWO)

Frederik Dhondt (VUB/Antwerp/Ghent-FWO)

Elisabetta Fiocchi Malaspina (Zürich)

Scientific Committee

Jacques Bouineau (La Rochelle)

Paul De Hert (VUB)

Dirk Heirbaut (Ghent)

Christine Lebeau (Paris I)

Gabriella Silvestrini (Piemonte Orientale)

Matthias Schmoeckel (Bonn)

Antonio Trampus (Venezia)

Miloš Vec (Vienna)

APPEL À CONTRIBUTIONS

Formation, idées et pratique. Le droit des gens dans le long dix-huitième siècle

(Paris, 18-19 mai 2017)

Les origines du droit international et les divers concepts du « droit des gens » seront au cœur d’une rencontre scientifique, portant sur l’étude du langage juridique des diplomates et des chancelleries européennes pendant le long dix-huitième siècle. Les mécanismes d’application spécifiques à travers lesquels le droit des gens fut invoqué pour une utilisation diplomatique ne se conçoivent pas en dehors des aspects culturels et sociaux, ou des problèmes pratiques que les diplomates avaient à trancher (N. Drocourt & E. Schnakenbourg (dir.), Thémis en diplomatie, PU Rennes, 2016).

                La relation entre la diplomatie et le droit des gens est ambiguë. D’une part, le droit des gens semble un produit hybride de concepts philosophiques et une cristallisation de pratique diplomatique. Les juristes peinent à résister la tentation d’écrire une histoire purement académique ou généalogique du droit des gens. L’invocation fréquente d’auteurs tels que Vattel en est une indication courante (P. Haggenmacher & V. Chetail (dir.), Vattel’s International Law from a XXIst Century Perspective, Brill, 2011). Néanmoins, l’interaction de la négociation entraîne bien plus qu’une invocation de principes juridiques. Une analyse rigoureuse de la pratique diplomatique révèle des règles implicites au sein de la diplomatie comme champ social (P. Bourdieu, Sur l’Etat, Seuil, 2012). L’argumentation juridique relève de ce microcosme et doit donc être apprécié dans une sociabilité qui transcende les traditions juridiques nationales (L. Bély, L’art de la paix en Europe : naissance de la diplomatie moderne, XVIe-XVIIIe siècle, PUF, 2007). Toutefois, les déterminants géopolitiques et les intérêts d’État peuvent amender ou infléchir l’utilisation d’arguments juridiques.

                Une question centrale sera d’essayer de savoir si les théories du droit des gens ont influé la pratique diplomatique, et si de son côté la pratique diplomatique a réussi à changer les concepts traditionnels du droit des gens. Un échange fructueux entre jeunes historiens du droit, historiens de la pensée politique et historiens « du politique » de France, d’Allemagne et d’autres traditions intellectuelles européennes permettra d’explorer trois scénarios différents à travers lesquels les théories du droit des gens émergeaient aussi bien en pratique qu’en doctrine diplomatique.

1)      Formation des diplomates

Le droit des gens constituait-il le cœur de la formation diplomatique ? Qu’en fut-il des enseignements pratiques, organisés par les administrations étatiques des affaires étrangères ? Quel était le rapport entre les connaissances tirées de l’objet même de la négociation (la pratique) et celle dérivée des écrits qui font autorité dans nos traditions scientifiques ? Pouvait-on vraiment parler de professionnalisation, également eu égard aux développements du XIXe (L. Nuzzo & M. Vec (dir.), Constructing International Law – The Birth of a Discipline, V. Klostermann, 2012) ? Finalement, qu’en fut-il du caractère commun ou européen de la culture diplomatique des divers corps ?

2)      Circulation des idées et réseaux diplomatiques

Les traités dévoués au droit des gens sont souvent étudiés en isolement, hors contexte, dans leur lignée intellectuelle ou académique. Cependant, qu’en fut-il de leur utilisation pratique ou de celle de l’expertise juridique plus générale (G. Braun, La connaissance du Saint-Empire en France du baroque aux Lumières (1643-1756), De Gruyter, 2010), comme outil rhétorique dans la politique quotidienne ? À qui s’adressaient les traités de penseurs comme l’abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) ? Le souverain, ou bien ses conseillers juridiques, ou bien l’opinion de la république des lettres ? Si le droit des gens constituait une sorte de culture diplomatique européenne commune, comment se diffusait-elle sur le continent ? Peut-on identifier des usages similaires dans les flux diplomatiques ? Comment les réseaux s’organisaient-ils ? Peut-on identifier des carrefours diplomatiques, tels que les principautés de Valachie et Moldavie, entre l’Empire Ottoman et les puissances européennes ?

3)      Transformation

Le Congrès de Vienne (1815) fut-il vraiment un tournant pour le droit des gens ? Si nous pouvons identifier une transition, relève-t-elle de la doctrine juridique ou plutôt des idées politiques ? À quel degré la pensée des Lumières et de la Révolution a-t-elle impacté le droit des gens classique (M. Bélissa, Fraternité universelle et intérêt national, 1713-1795, Kimé, 1998) ? Dans quelle mesure la correspondance diplomatique en fut-elle le témoin ?

Nous invitons les jeunes chercheurs (jusqu’à six ans après soutenance de la thèse de doctorat) à présenter leurs recherches nouvelles, dans une perspective franco-allemande et européenne. Les propositions doivent être envoyées pour le 20 février 2017 au plus tard, accompagnées d’un CV concis (5 à 10 lignes) et d’un résumé de 400 mots au maximum (diplomacyconference2017@gmail.com). Les résultats seront communiqués pour le 15 mars 2017 au plus tard.

La conférence a reçu le soutien du CIERA (Centre interdisciplinaire d’études et de recherches sur l’Allemagne, www.ciera.fr) en tant que colloque junior. Elle aura lieu à Paris, le 18 mai 2017 (à la Maison de la Recherche), et le 19 mai 2017 (Fondation Biermans-Lapôtre, Cité Internationale Universitaire de Paris). Les contributions peuvent être présentées en anglais, français ou allemand. Les frais de déplacement et d'hébergement pourront être pris en charge sous certaines conditions. Une publication soumise au contrôle des pairs est envisagée.

Comité organisateur
Raphael Cahen (VUB-FWO/Orléans-POLEN)
Frederik Dhondt (VUB/Anvers/Gand-FWO)
Elisabetta Fiocchi Malaspina (Zürich)

Comité scientifiqueJacques Bouineau (La Rochelle)Paul De Hert (VUB)
Dirk Heirbaut (Gand)
Christine Lebeau (Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne)
Gabriella Silvestrini (Piemonte Orientale)
Matthias Schmoeckel (Bonn)
Antonio Trampus (Venise)
Miloš Vec (Vienne)

CALL FOR PAPERS: Ausbildung, Ideen und Praxis.
Das Völkerrecht im langen 18. Jahrhundert

Das Ziel dieser Konferenz besteht darin, den Ursprung und die verschiedenen Konzepte des Völkerrechts (droit des gens) in der juristischen Sprache der Diplomaten während des langen 18. Jahrhunderts zu untersuchen. Dabei geht es um die spezifische Verwendung des Völkerrechts als diplomatisches Werkzeug und die sozialen und kulturellen Aspekte dieser praktischen Diplomatie. (N. Drocourt & E. Schnakenbourg (hg.), Thémis en diplomatie, PU Rennes, 2016).

Die Beziehungen zwischen Diplomatie und Völkerrecht sind ambivalent. Das Völkerrecht ist ein Produkt philosophischer Konzepte und diplomatischer Praxis. Den Juristen fällt es schwer, einer akademischen oder genealogischen Geschichte des Völkerrechts auszuweichen, weshalb in der Historiografie häufig Vattel zitiert wird (P. Haggenmacher & V. Chetail, Vattel’s International Law from a XXIst Century Perspective, Brill, 2011). Dennoch ist Diplomatie viel mehr als nur eine Argumentation auf der Grundlage juristischer Prinzipien. Eine tiefere Analyse der praktischen Diplomatie wird implizite Regeln in der Diplomatie als Champs social zeigen (P. Bourdieu, Sur l’Etat, Seuil, 2012). Die juristische Argumentation entstammt diesem Mikrokosmos und soll auch im Rahmen einer transnationalen Soziabilität untersucht werden, welche über die nationale juristische Tradition hinausgeht (L. Bély, L’art de la paix en Europe: naissance de la diplomatie moderne, XVIe-XVIIIe siècle, PUF, 2007). Dabei können geopolitische Fakten oder Staatsinteressen den Gebrauch juristischer Argumentationsformen modifizieren.

Die zentrale Frage lautet, inwiefern völkerrechtliche Theorien die diplomatische Praxis beeinflusst haben und wie die praktische Diplomatie ihrerseits die Konzepte des Völkerrechts modifiziert hat. Die Nachwuchs-Konferenz versteht sich als Forum für einen Dialog zwischen Rechtshistorikern, Ideengeschichtlern und Politik-Historikern aus Frankreich, Deutschland und anderen europäischen Ländern. Wir werden die völkerrechtlichen Theorien hinsichtlich der Praxis wie auch in der Doktrin aus dreierlei Perspektiven untersuchen.

1) Die Diplomatische Ausbildung
War das Völkerrecht der Kern der diplomatischen Ausbildung? Welcher praktische Lehrstoff wurde von den Außendienstverwaltungen der Staaten angeboten? Welche Beziehung gab es zwischen dem Wissen, das aus der Praxis abgeleitet wurde und der Wissenschaft? Kann man bereits im 18. Jahrhundert von Professionalisierung sprechen (L. Nuzzo & M. Vec (hg.), Constructing International Law – The Birth of a Discipline, V. Klostermann, 2012)? Lässt sich eine gemeinsame oder europäische diplomatische Kultur der verschiedenen europäischen diplomatischen Ausbildungen ausmachen?

2) Die Verbreitung der Ideen und diplomatische Netzwerke
Völkerrechtliche Verträge werden oft ohne Kontextualisierung und nicht hinsichtlich ihres akademischen oder intellektuellen Ursprungs untersucht. Was kann man über ihre praktische Bedeutung, den Gebrauch, die juristische Expertise oder sogar ihre Funktion als rhetorisches Werkzeug in der Tagespolitik sagen (G. Braun, La connaissance du Saint-Empire en France du baroque aux Lumières (1643-1756), De Gruyter, 2010)? Für wen hat Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) geschrieben? Für den Prinzen, die Juristen, die Republik des lettres, die öffentliche Meinung? War das Völkerrecht Teil einer gemeinsamen europäischen Kultur? Wenn ja, wie wurde diese Kultur verbreitet? Findet sich solch ein Habitus im diplomatischen Handeln? Wie waren die Netzwerke organisiert? Gab es verschiedene diplomatische Mittelpunkte wie die Fürstentümer der Walachei und Moldau, die als Vermittler zwischen dem Osmanischen Reich und den Europäischen Mächten galten?

3) Der Wandel
Ist der Wiener Kongress wirklich ein Wendepunkt im Völkerrecht? Wenn ein Wandel identifiziert werden kann, gründet dieser im juristischen Diskurs oder in den politischen Ideen der Zeit? Inwiefern haben die Aufklärung und die Französische Revolution das « klassische » Völkerrecht verändert (M. Bélissa, Fraternité universelle et intérêt national, 1713-1795, Kimé, 1998)? Zeugt die diplomatische Korrespondenz der Zeit von diesen Veränderungen?

Wir laden Nachwuchswissenschaftler (bis 6 Jahre nach der Verteidigung der Doktorarbeit) ein, ihre Forschungen in deutsch-französischer und europäischer Perspektive vorzustellen. Die Vortragvorschläge (400 Worte) sollen mit einem kurzen Lebenslauf bis zum 20.02.2017 an diplomacyconference2017@gmail.com gesendet werden. Bis zum 15.03.2017 bekommen Sie eine Antwort.

Die Konferenz wird in Paris am 18. (Maison de la Recherche), und 19. Mai 2017 (Fondation Biermans-Lapôtre, Cité Internationale Universitaire de Paris) stattfinden.

Die Vorträge können entweder auf Englisch, Deutsch oder Französisch gehalten werden. Unterkunft und Fahrkosten werden unter bestimmten Bedingungen rückerstattet. Eine Peer-Review Veröffentlichung des Konferenzbandes ist geplant.

Organisatoren 
Raphael Cahen (VUB-FWO/Orléans-POLEN)
Frederik Dhondt (VUB/Anvers/Gand-FWO)
Elisabetta Fiocchi Malaspina (Zürich)

Wissenschaftliches Komitee
Jacques Bouineau (La Rochelle) 
Paul De Hert (VUB)
Dirk Heirbaut (Gand) 
Christine Lebeau (Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne)
Gabriella Silvestrini (Piemonte Orientale)
Matthias Schmoeckel (Bonn)
Antonio Trampus (Venise) 
Miloš Vec (Vienne)