ESIL Interest Group History of International Law

ESIL Interest Group History of International Law

vrijdag 29 maart 2019

BOOK REVIEW: Martin HECKEL, Martin Luthers Reformation und das Recht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 2016, XIV + 988 S., ISBN 978-3-16-154211-4, EUR 69,00 by Isabelle DEFLERS (Freibourg/Breisgau) Sehepunkte 18 (2018), 11

(image source: Sehepunkte)

First paragraph:
Das Reformationsjubiläum im Jahr 2017 wurde von einer unüberschaubaren Anzahl an Neuerscheinungen in den unterschiedlichsten Gattungen begleitet. Unter ihnen ragt die monumentale Studie Martin Heckels über das Verhältnis von Luthers reformatorischer Lehre zu seinem Verständnis vom Recht heraus. Das Buch enthält nicht nur eine gründliche und umfangreiche Untersuchung der Auswirkungen der lutherisch ausgeprägten Theologie auf die Art und Weise, wie Recht zu definieren sei, sondern darüber hinaus auch die persönliche Reflexion eines 89-jährigen Gelehrten über den Stellenwert des Kirchenrechts heutzutage. Somit zieht das 988 Seiten umfassende Buch ein Fazit über das eigene Œuvre und die eigene Disziplin, stellt aber kein Vermächtnis dar, denn Heckel erwähnt im Vorwort zwei geplante Fortsetzungen: zunächst einen Band über die Rechtsentwicklung im Reich und in den Territorien bis zum Westfälischen Frieden und einen dritten Band über die Wandlungen des evangelischen Kirchenrechts und Staatskirchenrechts bis in die Gegenwart.
Read further on Sehepunkte.
(source: ESCLH Blog)

donderdag 28 maart 2019

WEBSITE: Grotiana Foundation and Journal

(image source: Grotiana)

The Grotiana Foundation and Journal have opened a new website.


(source: Mark Somos/Twitter)

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: Cromwell Foundation Book Prize in American Legal History (DEADLINE: 31 May 2019)


The American Society for Legal History has opened a call for nominations for the Cromwell Book Prize. Here the call:

The William Nelson Cromwell Foundation Book Prize is awarded annually to the best book in the field of American legal history by an early career scholar. The prize is designed to recognize and promote new work in the field by graduate students, law students, post-doctoral fellows and faculty not yet tenured. The work may be in any area of American legal history, including constitutional and comparative studies, but scholarship in the colonial and early national periods will receive some preference. The prize is limited to a first book, wholly or primarily written while the author was untenured. Submission of a book by an author who has previously been awarded a Cromwell Foundation Prize for a dissertation or article must be accompanied by a showing that the book enhances, or differs in subject from, the previous work.

The author of the winning book receives a prize of $5,000. The Foundation awards the prize after a review of the recommendation of the Cromwell Prize Advisory Committee of the American Society for Legal History. The Committee shall consider a book in the year of its copyright date or of its actual publication. However, no book shall be considered for the prize more than once.

To nominate a book, please send copies of it and the curriculum vitae of its author to John D. Gordan, III, Chair of the Cromwell Prize Advisory Committee, and to each member of the Cromwell Book Prize Advisory Committee with a postmark no later than May 31, 2019.

All information can be found at the website of the ASLH

(source: ESCLH Blog)

woensdag 27 maart 2019

BOOK: Hermann HELLER, Sovereignty. A Contribution to the Theory of Public and International Law (ed. David DYZENHAUS) [The Theory and History of International Law] (Oxford: OUP, 2019), 208 p. ISBN 9780198810544, 70 GBP

(image source: OUP)

Book abstract:
Hermann Heller was one of the leading public lawyers and legal and political theorists of the Weimar era, whose main interlocutors were two of the giants of twentieth century legal and political thought, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. In this 1927 work, Hermann Heller addresses the paradox of sovereignty. That is, how the sovereign can be both the highest authority and subject to law. Unlike Kelsen and Schmitt, who seek to dissolve the paradox, Heller sees that the tensions the paradox highlights are an essential part of a society ruled by law. Sovereignty, in the sense of national and popular sovereignty, is often perceived today as being under threat, as power devolves from nation states to international bodies, and important decisions seem increasingly made by elite-dominated institutions. Hermann Heller wrote Sovereignty in 1927 amidst the very similar tensions of the Weimar Republic. In an exploration of history, constitutional and political theory, and international law, Heller speaks clearly to our contemporary concerns, and shows that democrats must defend a legal idea of sovereignty suitable for a pluralistic world.
On the editor:
Hermann Heller was one of the leading public lawyers and legal and political theorists of the Weimar era. However, he is hardly known outside of Germany, in large part because he, a Jewish socialist and militant opponent of the Nazis, died in exile in Spain in 1933 aged 42. He was then in the midst of composing a definitive statement of his views, a book on state theory, which was subsequently published in a form revised by his assistant. Sovereignty is the major work that Heller himself brought to completion. David Dyzenhaus is a professor of Law and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He holds the Alfred Abel Chair of Law and was appointed in 2015 to the rank of University Professor. He has taught in South Africa, England, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, Hungary, Mexico and the USA. He holds a doctorate from Oxford University and law and undergraduate degrees from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. In 2002, he was the Law Foundation Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland. In 2005-06 he was Herbert Smith Visiting Professor in the Cambridge Law Faculty and a Senior Scholar of Pembroke College, Cambridge. In 2014-15, he was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science in Cambridge. In 2016-17 he was a Fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.
More information with OUP.

PhD Fellowships: “Global History of Empires”, University of Turin – Higher School of Economics (Moscow/St Petersburg) (DEADLINE: 17 April 2019)

(Source: HSozKult)

We learned of 7 PhD fellowships at the University of Turin/Higher School of Economics (Moscow and St. Petersburg) on the Global History of Empires. One of the thematic foci is “legal pluralism in comparative perspective”.

The Program in Global History of Empires announces the call for applications for admission in 2019. The program is implemented by the University of Turin (Italy) and the Higher School of Economics (Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia). The program is for three years, enrolled students pursue their dissertation research in the international environment and enjoy international academic supervision. Scholarships are allocated at the University of Turin (4 scholarships) and Higher Schools of Economics (3 scholarships) […]

More info can be found on Hsozkult

(source: ESCLH Blog)

READING GROUP: “Just dominion: whatever may have been the right and justice in the beginning”: Reading Course of Alonso de la Vera Cruz’ Relectio De dominio infidelium et iusto bello (Frankfurt am Main: MPIeR, 10-12 APR 2019)

(image source: ScienceSprings)

The project “The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources and a Dictionary of its Juridical-Political Language” invites applications for its second Reading Course: The discovery and conquest of America in the Early Modern era gave rise to intense debate among European jurists, theologians, and philosophers. Due to the leading role played by the Spanish monarchy in this process of conquests and assimilation of American indigenous peoples, most of the Iberian ‘intellectuals’ took part in the polemic. One of the major figures of this debate – as well as of the School of Salamanca – was the Augustinian monk and professor of theology Alonso de la Vera Cruz († 1584).
While doctrines of authors such as Vitoria and Soto, considered by the historiography as founders of the School of Salamanca, are well known and have aroused the interest of the international scientific community, little attention has so far been paid to Alonso de la Vera Cruz. First holder of the chairs of Sacred Scripture and S. Thomas at the newly established University of Mexico, he can be considered as the teacher who first introduced western philosophy in America.
Vera Cruz wrote the Relectio De dominio infidelium et iusto bello for the inauguration of the University of Mexico (1553). The text is a polemical reflection about the dilemmas related to the process of conquest and subordination of native American peoples which was then still in progress. Having always in mind the famous Relectio De Indis (1539) held by Francisco de Vitoria at the University of Salamanca some years before (with Vera Cruz already overseas), we will discuss the similarities and differences between the legal and political thinking of both authors.
Vera Cruz focusses on two aspects of the Spanish colonial presence in America: the justification of Spanish rule and of the power change from the indigenous rulers to the king of Castile, and that of the legal and moral relations between Spanish settlers, the so-called encomenderos, and the indigenous population. We will analyse Vera Cruz’ juridical positions regarding political dominion, socio-economic domination and questions of private property in America, but we will also look at the religious elements inextricably linked to the political issues, and, in particular, at strategies of evangelization and conversion.
On a methodological level, we will discuss the structure of argumentation as well as the handling of authors, authorities, and citations. By approaching these quintessential features of early modern scholasticism, the participants will gain experience in handling the complex texts of early modern European academia.
The Reading Course addresses advanced students, doctoral students and post-docs from legal studies, philosophy, history, theology, and political sciences. Working language will be English.
Participants working on a research project of their own (master or doctoral thesis) are invited to present and discuss their work during a special section of the Reading Course.
Max Planck Institute for European Legal History
Hansaallee 41
60323 Frankfurt am Main
More information
Please find the full Call for Applications with the program's draft, requirements, and more information here: 

Project The School of Salamanca
Dr. Christiane Birr, Dr. José Luis Egío, Dr. Andreas Wagner
(source: dr. Andreas Wagner)
(source: ESCLH Blog)

dinsdag 26 maart 2019

BOOK: Roeland GOORTS, War, State and Society in Liège. How a Small State of the Holy Roman Empire Survived the Nine Years' War (1688-1697) [Avisos de Flandes; 17] (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2019), 418 p. ISBN 9789462701311, € 65

Book abstract:
War, State and Society in Liège is a fascinating case study of the consequences of war in the Prince-Bishopric of Liège and touches upon wider issues in early modern history, such as small power diplomacy in the seventeenth century and during the Nine Years’ War.
For centuries, the small semi-independent Holy Roman Principality of Liège succeeded in preserving a non-belligerent role in European conflicts. During the Nine Years’ War (1688–1697), however, Liège’s leaders had to abolish the practice of neutrality. For the first time in its early modern history, the Prince-Bishopric had to raise a regular army, reconstruct ruined defence structures, and supply army contributions in both money and material.
The issues under discussion in War, State and Society in Liège offer the reader insight into how Liège politically protected its powerful institutions and how the local elite tried to influence the interplay between domestic and external diplomatic relationships.
More with the publisher.

(source: Standen en Landen/Anciens Pays et Assemblées d'États)

maandag 25 maart 2019

ARTICLE: John Fabian WITT & Bennett OSDIEK, "The Czar and the Slaves: Two Puzzles in the History of International Arbitration" (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming)

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

In 1822, the Russian Czar Alexander decided an arbitration between the United Kingdom and the United States over the fate of 5,000 enslaved persons who fled to British lines at the end of the War of 1812. American observers have asserted for more than a century that the Czar’s decision, which has gone down in history as one of the canonical Anglo-American arbitrations of the Early Republic, favored the United States. But did the U.S. really win? Secretary of State John Quincy Adams complained at the time that the decision was not sufficiently clear. And new debate has broken out in the historical literature. This article resolves the question, relying in part on new evidence from diplomatic archives in the United States and the United Kingdom. We show that, as a formal matter, the Czar sided with the United States, though the arbitration proved useful to U.K. statesmen as well. The curious case of the Czar and the slaves also poses a second puzzle about the relationship between slavery and the emergence of modern international law. Even as the U.K. was beginning to use international law to oppose the slave trade, the United States aimed to turn some of international law’s institutions into powerful bastions of support for slavery.
Read the fulltext on SSRN.

vrijdag 22 maart 2019

ARTICLES: EJIL XXIX (2018), Issue 4: International Law and World War One

(image source: Oxford Journals)

The most recent issue of EJIL, the organ of the European Society of International Law, contains several articles of the symposium International Law and World War One.

The Law of Military Occupation from the 1907 Hague Peace Conference to the Outbreak of World War II: Was Further Codification Unnecessary or Impossible ? (Thomas Graditzky)
World War I is commonly perceived as having had a profound impact on international law. Such a general perception, be it justified or not, might in any event prove erroneous when looking at specific areas of this law. A focus on the law governing military occupation reveals a notable absence of change over the course of the war and the subsequent interwar period. In search of possible reasons, this article first looks at various opportunities that emerged – but were not ultimately seized – to adapt treaty law in the period between the two world wars. It then assesses whether changes had in fact occurred through other channels such as customary international law or treaty interpretation. Based on the observation that no meaningful change intervened, can it be concluded that, on the whole, the Hague regulations on military occupation met stakeholders’ expectations and therefore were not altered? The author suggests, rather, that the equilibrium founded in The Hague in 1899 (and confirmed in 1907) on the lines of tension between the states involved remained operational throughout the period under scrutiny.

The Impact of World War I on the Law Governing the Treatment of Prisoners of War and the Making of a Humanitarian Subject (Neville Wylie & Lindsey Cameron)
This article evaluates the impact of World War I on the development of international humanitarian law (IHL) regarding the treatment of the prisoner of war (POW). In contrast to traditional scholarship, which overlooks the war’s significance on the jus in bello, we argue that in the area of POW law, the changes brought about by the war were significant and long-lasting and led to the creation of a POW convention in 1929 that set IHL onto a markedly different path from that followed before 1914. Although the process was only completed with the signing of the four Geneva Conventions in 1949, many of the distinguishing features of modern POW law had their roots in the experience of captivity during World War I and the legal developments that followed in its wake. In particular, the scale, duration and intensity of wartime captivity after 1914 gave rise to a conceptual shift in the way POWs were perceived, transforming their status from ‘disarmed combatants’, whose special privileges were derived from their position as members of the armed forces, to ‘humanitarian subjects’, whose treatment was based on an understanding of their humanitarian needs and rights.
More information with Oxford Journals.

donderdag 21 maart 2019

CHAPTER: Ignacio DE LA RASILLA Y DEL MORAL, "Quintiliano Saldaña Garcia-Rubio (1878-1938)" in The Dawn of a Discipline – International Criminal Justice and Its Early Exponents, Frédéric MEGRET & Immi TALLGREN (eds.), forthcoming (SSRN)

(image source: KUL)

Quintiliano Saldaña Garcia-Rubio (1878-1938) was one of the leading proponents of ‘legal pragmatism’ in European criminal law circles in the interwar period and the author of the first course on international criminal justice delivered at The Hague Academy of International Law in 1925. This chapter examines the three main stages in Saldaña’s polyhedral intellectual life. The first part surveys Saldaña’s formative years and his early academic professional development, examining the influence of Franz von Liszt’s Marburg School of Criminal Law on his academic interests and professional career until the end of the First World War. The second part examines Saldaña’s seminal theory of ‘universal social defence’ and his 1925 Hague Academy course, La justice pénale internationale, which included one of the first projects for an international criminal code. It also reviews Saldaña's legislative contribution to the polemical 1928 Spanish Criminal Code project, which is widely considered an example of a proto-fascist criminal code. The third part follows Saldaña’s career during the Second Spanish Republic, surveying his criminal law and criminology work in the development of his theory of ‘legal pragmatism.’ It also revisits his engagement with the mid-1930s international legal debates on terrorism in the framework his contribution to the works of the International Bureau for the Unification of Criminal Law. The conclusion revisits the mysterious circumstances of Saldaña’s death during the Spanish Civil War and the dark legacy of his legal thought on the criminal law system of General Franco’s regime in Spain.
Read the full paper on SSRN.

(source: International Law Reporter)

woensdag 20 maart 2019

CONFERENCE: Bicentenary of the 1820 Revolution (Lisbon, 12-14 October 2020); DEADLINE 30 JUN 2019

(image "The General and Extraordinary Cortes of the Portuguese Nation that approved the first Portuguese Constitution" source: Wikimedia Commons)
The 1820 Revolution was the founding event of liberalism in Portugal and Brazil. It was part of a broader movement that spread across Southern Europe and the two Latin American empires of the Atlantic region. In all cases, the epicentre consisted of political constitutions, inspired by the Spanish model of the 1812 Cadiz Constitution. The Nation, understood as a new political pillar of the constituent power of parliament, lay at the foundations of the broad concept of national sovereignty that characterised the first Portuguese Constitution of 1822. National independence was an aim that was inscribed in the goals of the 1820 revolution, as was also the case in other southern countries. The parallel outbreak of the movement for independence in the colonies of Latin America resulted in conflicts that would subsequently reveal the imperialist nature of Iberian liberalism.The liberal movement in Southern Europe was counter-cyclical in relation to the political situation of Central and Northern Europe, namely France and England, which were now incorporated into the Holy Alliance, formed to guarantee the political stability of Europe after Napoleon. It was against this unfavourable international background that the complex process of the independence of the South American colonies first began to unfurl. The programme of this Congress seeks to reflect upon this geopolitical perspective of the revolutionary movement.One of the characteristics of the revolutionary movement was its formal prudence. Frequently, the word “regeneration” was preferred to the term “revolution”, since it suggested moderation. The spectre of the violence of the French Revolution hung over both sides, those who wished for a change and those who defended the conservation of the status quo. The desire for moderation and the fear of unleashing conflicts were visible features of all the activity of the Cortes of 1821-22. However, the mere proclamation of the Basis of the Constitution and the rights of citizenship represented a profound shock to the existing society. The very concept of citizenship was revolutionary in itself and represented a major innovation in the relationship between the individual and the State, calling into question the corporative society of orders. A constitution defining the newly-established powers also represented a rupture with the pre-existing concept of royal power. This was how its enemies immediately understood things. Revolution and counter-revolution were the two different faces of this time, within which the thematic axes that form the structure for the programme of this Congress are also to be found intertwined.Different generations of essayists and historians have turned their attention to the 1820 Revolution. Despite the considerable bibliography already existing about this event and its time, the commemoration of the bicentenary represents a challenge for reviewing the subject in the light of present-day historiography, as well as providing a stimulus for the presentation of new approaches and new perspectives of analysis. Accordingly, we now present the academic community with the programme for the Congress, setting out the thematic panels that seem to us to be the most relevant. In each case, the presentation of the themes is the responsibility of the coordinators who were invited to organise the respective sessions.

Submission guidelines
by 30 June 2019.
Those interested in submitting a proposal for a paper to be presented at the International Congress of the Bicentenary of the 1820 Revolution must complete the form available HERE and send it to the Congress secretariat cbr1820@gmail.comThe proposals must indicate the thematic panel under which the paper is to be presented. The description of the thematic panels is available HERE.Each applicant may present only one proposal for a paper.All decisions relating to the acceptance of papers will be taken by the coordinators of the thematic panels, and applicants will be informed of the respective decision by 31 October 2019.The authors of accepted papers must deliver the text of their papers (in accordance with rules to be established in due course) by 31 May 2020.The final programme for the Congress will be established once the texts of the approved papers have been received.Languages for the Congress: Portuguese, Spanish and English.Informations:
Organising Committee
  • Miriam Halpern Pereira (ISCTE-IUL), Presidente;
  • Jorge Fernandes Alves (UPorto/FL);
  • Ana Cristina Araújo (UCoimbra/FL);
  • José Luís Cardoso (ULisboa/ICS);
  • Zília Osório de Castro (NOVA FCSH);
  • Maria Alexandre Lousada (ULisboa/FL);
  • Luís Espinha da Silveira (NOVA FCSH)
Scientific Committee
  • José Viriato Capela (UMinho);
  • Fátima Sá e Melo Ferreira (ISCTE-IUL);
  • Sérgio Campos Matos (ULisboa/FL);
  • Maria Fátima Nunes (UÉvora);
  • José Miguel Sardica (UCP/FCH);
  • Cristina Nogueira da Silva (UNL/FD);
  • Maria Beatriz Nizza da Silva (USP);
  • Susana Serpa Silva (UAçores);
  • Luís Reis Torgal (UCoimbra/FL);
  • Isabel Vargues (UCoimbra/FL);
  • Telmo Verdelho (UAveiro)
(source: Calenda)

dinsdag 19 maart 2019

Antonios TZANAKOPOULOS, "La Russie et le Conseil de sécurité : les trois époques de la pratique (Russia and the Security Council: Three Epochs of Practice)" (Revue Générale de Droit International Public CXXIX (2019))

(image source: KUL)

French Abstract: Cette contribution concerne la pratique de la Russie dans sa qualité comme membre permanente du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies. Elle tracerait la participation soviétique/russe au Conseil de sécurité en discernant approximativement trois époques de cette participation : l’époque soviétique du « deadlock », de l’impasse, pendant la guerre froide ; l’époque de retrait russe, de consensus entre les membres permanents et, par conséquence, de l’hégémonie américaine ; et l’époque actuelle paradoxale de réengagement, quand la Russie utilise les arguments occidentaux contre l’Occident. English Abstract:This paper discusses the three different epochs of Soviet/Russian practice in the Security Council. After recounting the 'switch' from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation as a permanent member of the Security Council, the paper traces the three epochs it identifies: from the Soviet era of the deadlock during the Cold War, to the era of Russian retreat during the New World Order and US hegemony, to the current paradoxical era of Russian re-engagement, where Russia invokes Western arguments against the West.
Read the full paper on SSRN.

maandag 18 maart 2019

ARTICLE: Boyd VAN DIJK, "“The Great Humanitarian”: The Soviet Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Geneva Conventions of 1949"' (Law and History Review XXXVII (2019), Issue 1)

(image source: Cambridge Core)

Boyd van Dijk (Amsterdam) published an article on the Soviet Union and the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the latest issue of the Law and History Review (American Society for Legal History). Unfortunately, the journal does not publish abstracts. Those willing to consult the article can click here.

vrijdag 15 maart 2019

JOURNAL: Special issue "L'archive européenne", Revue Française de Science Politique LXIX (2019), Issue 1

(image source: Cairn)

Savoirs et pouvoirs dans le gouvernement de l’Europe Pour une sociohistoire de l’archive européenne (Francisco Roa Bastos & Antoine Vauchez)
Cet article (et le dossier qu’il introduit) propose de renouveler l’étude des formes de connaissance de l’Europe à partir de la notion-test d’Archive. Reprise à la fois aux historiens et à L’archéologie du savoir de Michel Foucault, la notion d’Archive – ici retravaillée pour la mettre au service d’une sociohistoire attentive aussi bien aux acteurs, à leurs luttes d’intérêt qu’à leurs discours – permet d’inclure dans l’analyse des « savoirs d’Europe » ce qui a été jusqu’ici laissé dans l’ombre. Car si l’étude des savoirs de gouvernement transnationaux est en plein essor, elle s’est concentrée pour l’instant sur les catégories et les paradigmes les plus consacrés, et donc sur ce qu’on pourrait appeler la doxa européenne. Mais elle a laissé de côté tous les savoirs avortés de la « construction européenne » : les catégories oubliées, les objets perdus, les savoirs contestés et rejetés... bref, tous ces « échecs doxiques » que la notion d’Archive permet de prendre en compte, en élargissant la focale pour inclure tous les discours, souvent contradictoires, qui ont été formulés sur l’Europe, par des acteurs bien plus divers que les traditionnels « entrepreneurs d’Europe » bien identifiés. Une manière de réencastrer l’« Europe de Bruxelles » dans ses différents contextes historiques et sociaux, pour mieux en comprendre les logiques de structuration.
 Mettre l’Europe en boîtes L’édification des archives historiques de l’Union européenne (Morgane Le Boulay)
Monument en trompe-l’œil dans la mesure où nombre de documents n’y sont pas accessibles, les Archives historiques de l’Union européenne (AHUE) restent malgré tout l’un des éléments matériels et symboliques incarnant le pouvoir européen. Cet article montre qu’elles sont le fruit de la mobilisation de divers acteurs : institutions communautaires (au premier rang desquelles la Commission), acteurs historiques de la construction européenne, mais aussi historiens et archivistes. Ces « coentrepreneurs d’archives » ne sont pas uniquement animés par le souci de légitimer l’Union européenne. Malgré des conflits, ils coopèrent et privilégient une histoire officielle, celle des institutions et des dirigeants, au détriment d’autres visions de l’Europe moins héroïques qui ont été envisagées mais bientôt abandonnées. L’effet de ces archives sur les publications scientifiques doit cependant être nuancé, car les chercheurs utilisent aussi des sources complémentaires
 Les sciences sociales européennes font-elles l’Europe ? L’institut universitaire européen, le béhavioralisme et la légitimation de l’intégration européenne (Thibaud Boncourt)
L’Institut universitaire européen (IUE), ouvert en 1976 à Florence, incarne l’ambition de légitimer la construction européenne par la connaissance scientifique. Cet article cherche à comprendre comment ces injonctions politiques se réfractent dans l’activité scientifique de l’IUE, à identifier le type de savoirs produits à l’institut et à comprendre leur contribution à la structuration d’une archive européenne. À partir d’une étude de l’histoire du département de sciences politiques et sociales (SPS) sur la base d’archives diversifiées, il montre la manière dont s’impose au département une science politique béhavioraliste, quantitative et comparative de l’Europe. L’histoire de cette victoire paradigmatique met en évidence l’un des mécanismes par lesquels se structurent certaines des approches aujourd’hui centrales pour les études européennes.
 L’impossible doctrine européenne du service public. Aux origines du service d’intérêt économique général (1958-1968) (Mélanie Vay)
Cet article explore un recoin délaissé de l’Archive européenne, à savoir l’étonnant échec de la bipartition « public »-« privé » (pourtant si structurante à l’échelon national) à prendre racine dans les catégories d’entendement dominantes du « projet européen ». En repartant des conflits historiques des débuts de la Communauté européenne autour des notions d’« entreprise publique » et de « service d’intérêt économique général » (Sieg), on retrace l’impossible formation d’une doctrine européenne du service public, dans un contexte où le secteur étatique et para-étatique est pourtant florissant dans les six pays fondateurs. Observer la trajectoire de ces labels dominés permet de mieux comprendre comment s’est construite initialement la doxa économique européenne, mais aussi les savoirs qui ont été oubliés, dans l’« Archive » plus large de l’Europe.
Un marché sans économistes ? La planification et l’impossible émergence d’une science économique européenne (1957-1967) (Hugo Canihac)
La contribution des savants à la construction européenne a fait l’objet d’un intérêt nouveau ces dernières années. Mais, si le rôle des juristes dans la production de formes de connaissance de l’Europe a été mis en évidence, la contribution des économistes semble étrangement limitée durant les premières années d’existence du Marché commun. C’est ce paradoxe d’un savoir économique qui ne « vient pas » au Marché commun qu’interroge cet article. Nous étudions pour cela les mobilisations, au début des années 1960, d’un collectif évoluant entre science économique et politique pour faire exister une « programmation économique communautaire ». Nous avançons que la difficulté à produire un savoir reconnu comme « scientifique » est une raison importante de la faiblesse de leur entreprise. Il s’agit alors de souligner la tension à laquelle est confrontée toute entreprise de mobilisation de la science (économique) dans le jeu politique : le succès des revendications d’un gouvernement « scientifique » dépend de la capacité de ses partisans non seulement à enrôler la science, mais aussi à stabiliser une distinction entre le savant et le politique.
Penser l’État contre l’Europe La genèse d’une orthodoxie juridique dans la République fédérale d’Allemagne de 1949 à l’arrêt Maastricht (Christophe Majastre)
En prenant pour point de départ la décision sur le traité de Maastricht de la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande (CCF), cet article s’intéresse aux conditions de formalisation d’un « contre-savoir » juridique sur l’Europe. Dans l’ombre des juristes européens et des juges de la Cour de justice européenne qui constituent des objets privilégiés d’une sociologie politique de la construction européenne, les juges de la CCF se voient souvent attribuer un pouvoir particulier d’influence et de mise en forme de la politique européenne. L’arrêt dit Maastricht constitue à ce titre un épisode fondateur, qui a largement été interprété comme reflétant un point de vue souverainiste et une attitude hostile envers la construction européenne. Prenant le contrepied de cette lecture canonique, cet article montre que cette décision ne peut s’expliquer qu’au regard des luttes qui opposent les « légistes », les professeurs de droit public, pour le monopole de l’interprétation constitutionnelle. Il analyse ensuite la controverse constitutionnelle sur le traité de Maastricht pour montrer comment un groupe de professeurs de droit a imposé le « droit de l’État » comme savoir privilégié pour analyser le jeu politique. 
Du droit international au droit européen Une sociologie du droit social comme entreprise de cause (Karim Fertik & Julien Louis)
Sociologie politique du droit, cette recherche met en évidence les liens entre le développement après la Seconde Guerre mondiale du droit social international et la mise en place du droit social européen. En s’appuyant sur une sociologie de la mobilisation transnationale des professionnels du droit social, l’enquête analyse le rôle d’intermédiaires que jouent ces juristes (fonctionnaires nationaux et internationaux, universitaires) qui connectent champs académiques nationaux, administrations nationales et organisations internationales entre eux. L’article insiste en particulier sur l’importance des juristes de la Société internationale de droit du travail et de la Sécurité sociale, une association internationale créée avec l’aide de l’Organisation internationale du travail. L’article montre que le développement du droit social européen repose sur des conceptions et des pratiques professionnelles éprouvées internationalement. La mobilisation des juristes de droit social par les fonctionnaires des Communautés européennes rend ainsi le droit social européen dépendant de formes juridiques internationales préexistantes. Le droit social européen s’analyse donc comme le produit d’une régionalisation de savoirs juridiques internationaux.
Read more on cairn.
(source: ESCLH Blog)

donderdag 14 maart 2019

BOOK: Beatrice DE GRAAF, Ido DE HAAN & Brian VICK (eds.), Securing Europe after Napoleon. 1815 and the New European Security Culture (Cambridge: CUP, 2019), xix + 316 p. ISBN 9781108597050, 75 GBP

(image source: CUP)

Book abstract:
After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the leaders of Europe at the Congress of Vienna aimed to establish a new balance of power. The settlement established in 1815 ushered in the emergence of a genuinely European security culture. In this volume, leading historians offer new insights into the military cooperation, ambassadorial conferences, transnational police networks, and international commissions that helped produce stability. They delve into the lives of diplomats, ministers, police officers and bankers, and many others who were concerned with peace and security on and beyond the European continent. This volume is a crucial contribution to the debates on securitisation and security cultures emerging in response to threats to the international order
On the editors:
Beatrice de Graaf, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands Beatrice de Graaf is Professor of History of International Relations and Global Governance at Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands. She leads an ERC project on security history in Europe and beyond, is an expert on history of terrorism, and is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the ECFR. Ido de Haan, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands Ido de Haan is Professor of Political History at Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands. He has written extensively about the aftermath of war and collective violence in modern European history, notably after the Napoleonic Wars and the Holocaust. Brian Vick, Emory University, Atlanta Brian Vick is Professor of History at Emory University, aTLANTA. He has written widely on the Congress of Vienna and its aftermath. His book The Congress of Vienna: Power and Politics After Napoleon (2014) won the Hans Rosenberg Book Prize of the Central European History Society of the American Historical Association.
Table of contents:
Vienna 1815: introducing a European security culture Beatrice de Graaf, Ido De Haan and Brian Vick Part I. Conceptualisations: 1. Cultures of peace and security from the Vienna Congress to the twenty-first century: characteristics and dilemmas Matthias Schulz; 2. Historicising a security culture: peace, security and the Vienna system in history and politics, 1815 to present Eckart Conze; 3. The Congress of Vienna as a missed opportunity: conservative visions of a new European order after Napoleon Matthijs Lok; Part II. Interests: 4. The Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine: a first step towards European economic security? Joep Schenk; 5. From the balance of power to a balance of diplomacy? Peace and security in the Vienna settlement Stella Ghervas; 6. The London Ambassadors' Conferences and beyond: abolition, Barbary corsairs and multilateral security in the Congress of Vienna system Brian Vick; 7. The allied machine: the Conference of Ministers in Paris and the management of security, 1815–18 Beatrice De Graaf; 8. The German Confederation: cornerstone of the new European security system Wolf D. Gruner; Part III. Threats: 9. Constructing an international conspiracy: revolutionary concertation and police networks in the European restoration Ido De Haan and Jeroen Van Zanten; 10. Security and transnational policing of political subversion and international crime in the German confederation after 1815 Karl Härter; 11. The papacy, reform, and intervention: international collective security in restoration Italy David Laven; 12. From Augarten to Algiers: securitising and 'piracy' around the Congress of Vienna Erik De Lange; Part IV. Agents and Practices: 13. Friedrich Von Gentz and his Wallachian correspondents: security concerns in a Southeastern European Borderland (1812–28) Constantin Ardeleanu; 14. Diplomats as power brokers Mark Jarrett; 15. Economic insecurity, 'securities' and a European security culture after the Napoleonic wars Glenda Sluga. 

Read more with CUP.

woensdag 13 maart 2019

BOOK: Daniel S. MARGOLIES et al., (eds.), The Extraterritoriality of Law : History, Theory, Politics (London: Routledge, 2019). ISBN 9780815378587, £92.00

(Source: Routledge)

Routledge is publishing a new book dealing i.a. with the history of legal extraterritoriality.


Questions of legal extraterritoriality figure prominently in scholarship on legal pluralism, transnational legal studies, international investment law, international human rights law, state responsibility under international law, and a large number of other areas. Yet many accounts of extraterritoriality make little effort to grapple with its thorny conceptual history, shifting theoretical valence, and complex political roots and ramifications. 

This book brings together thirteen scholars of law, history, and politics in order to reconsider the history, theory, and contemporary relevance of legal extraterritoriality. Situating questions of extraterritoriality in a set of broader investigations into state-building, imperialist rivalry, capitalist expansion, and human rights protection, it tracks the multiple meanings and functions of a distinct and far-reaching mode of legal authority. The fundamental aim of the volume is to examine the different geographical contexts in which extraterritorial regimes have developed, the political and economic pressures in response to which such regimes have grown, the highly uneven distributions of extraterritorial privilege that have resulted from these processes, and the complex theoretical quandaries to which this type of privilege has given rise.

The book will be of considerable interest to scholars in law, history, political science, socio-legal studies, international relations, and legal geography.


Daniel S. Margolies is Professor and Chair of the History Department at Virginia Wesleyan University, US

Umut Özsu is Assistant Professor of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, Canada

Maïa Pal is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Oxford Brookes University, UK

Ntina Tzouvala is Laureate Postdoctoral Fellow in International Law at Melbourne Law School, Australia


Table of Contents
Daniel S. Margolies, Umut Özsu, Maïa Pal, Ntina Tzouvala
Part I
What Is Extraterritoriality?
1. Ways of Doing Extraterritoriality in Scholarship
John Haskell
2. In the Middle of Nowhere: The Futile Quest to Distinguish Territoriality from Extraterritoriality
Péter D. Szigeti
3. Moving Beyond the E-word in the Anthropocene
Sara L. Seck
Part II
Constituting and Contesting Extraterritoriality
4. Early Modern Extraterritoriality, Diplomacy, and the Transition to Capitalism
Maïa Pal
5. "Uneven Empires": Extraterritoriality and the Early Trading Companies
Kate Miles
6. Protégé Problems: Qing Officials, Extraterritoriality, and Global Integration in Nineteenth-Century China
Richard S. Horowitz
7. Drinking Water by the Sea: Real and Unreal Property in the Mixed Courts of Egypt
Mai Taha
8. "And the laws are rude, … crude and uncertain": Extraterritoriality and the Emergence of Territorialised Statehood in Siam
Ntina Tzouvala
9. Imperial Reorderings in US Zones and Regulatory Regimes, 1934–50
Daniel S. Margolies
Part III
Extraterritoriality in the Contemporary World-System
10. The Interplay between Extraterritoriality, Sovereignty, and the Foundations of International Law
Austen L. Parrish
11. Extraterritoriality as an Analytic Lens: Examining the Global Governance of Transnational Bribery and Corruption
Ellen Gutterman
12. From Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to Sovereignty: The Annexation of Palestine
Alice Panepinto
13. Extraterritoriality Reconsidered: Functional Boundaries as Repositories of Jurisdiction
Ezgi Yildiz

More information here                   

(source: ESCLH Blog)                                 

dinsdag 12 maart 2019

BOOK: Sebastian WUSCHKA et al., eds., Zeit und Internationales Recht [Ius Internationale et Europaeum] (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019). ISBN 978-3-16-155921-1, €79.00

(Source: Mohr Siebeck)

Mohr Siebeck is publishing a collected edition on time and international law.


Der vorliegende Band widmet sich dem durch Zeit hervorgerufenen Wandel des internationalen Rechts. Dabei treffen verschiedene Generationen von Völkerrechtlern zusammen, die sich über Veränderungen im internationalen Recht austauschen.

Der Forschungsansatz ist querschnittsartig. Die Autoren identifizieren verschiedene Dynamiken des Wandels im Recht und analysieren, welchen zeitlichen Horizont alte und neue Rechtssätze im Völkerrecht besitzen. Ebenfalls werden methodische Fragestellungen untersucht: Verändert sich zum Beispiel die Auslegung von völkerrechtlichen Normen durch zunehmende Institutionalisierung oder durch neue Regelungstechniken? Kritisch beleuchtet werden überdies Legitimationsfragen. Die Figur des Fortschritts, die auf Völkerrechtler einen besonderen Reiz ausübt, wird hinterfragt und einer Rückbesinnung auf souveränitätsschonenden Ausgleich von staatlichen Interessen und Dispositionsfreiheit gegenübergestellt.


Isabella Risini ist Akademische Rätin auf Zeit an der Juristischen Fakultät der Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Felix Boor ist Akademischer Rat auf Zeit am Fachbereich Sozialökonomie an der Fakultät für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften der Universität Hamburg und korrespondierendes Mitglied des Instituts für Friedenssicherungsrecht und Humanitäres Völkerrecht an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Stefan Lorenzmeier ist Akademischer Rat an der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Augsburg.

Sebastian Wuschka ist Doktorand und Lehrbeauftragter an der Juristischen Fakultät der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Rechtsreferendar am Hanseatischen Oberlandesgericht und Mitglied der Praxisgruppe Int. Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit der Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft in Hamburg.


Felix Boor/Stefan Lorenzmeier/Isabella Risini/Sebastian Wuschka: Zeit und Internationales Recht. Vermessung der Veränderung

Part 1: Der Faktor Zeit: Regelungsperspektive und Methode
Jochen Rauber: Verschiebungen im Zeithorizont des Völkerrechts. Erscheinungsformen und Probleme völkerrechtlicher Zukunftsorientierung – Maria Bertel: EMRK und demokratische Legitimation: Eine unendliche Geschichte? – Marten Breuer: Demokratieprinzip oder Staatensouveränität? Ein Kommentar zu „EMRK und demokratische Legitimation: Eine unendliche Geschichte?“ von Maria Bertel – Dominic Beckers-Schwarz: Das Zusammenspiel von WTO-Recht und Investitionsrecht. Interaktion mit Beispielcharakter für andere Bereiche des Völkerrechts? – Katharina Gatzsche: Einvernehmliche Aufhebungen und Abänderungen bilateraler Investitionschutzabkommen – Karsten Nowrot: Kommentar: Völkerrechtlicher Umgang mit ambivalenten Regressionsphänomenen im internationalen Investitionsrecht

Part 2: Der Faktor Zeit: Veränderung und Beständigkeit
Tobias Ackermann: Die Auswirkungen bewaffneter Konflikte auf völkerrechtliche Verträge im Wandel der Zeit – Linus Mührel: Die Kommentare des Internationalen Komitees vom Roten Kreuz, ihre Autorität und ihr Einfluss auf die Entwicklung des Humanitären Völkerrechts im Wandel der Zeit – Antal Berkes: Frozen Conflicts, Consolidation of De Facto Regimes and the Obligation of Timely Cooperation – Sué González Hauck: Die Idee des Fortschritts in der Debatte um die Beschränkung des Veto-Rechts des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen

Part 3: Der Faktor Zeit: Auswirkungen auf das materielle Völkerrecht
Elisabeth Hoffberger-Pippan: Restitutionsansprüche von Kulturgütern im Völkerrecht – Der Faktor „Zeit“ als konstituierendes Merkmal – Yury Safoklov: Völkerrecht als lex aeterna – Zur rückwirkenden Anwendung völkervertraglicher Wertungen durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte – Elena Konnova: The Right to Self-determination and Time – Stefan Lorenzmeier: Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker als Einschränkung der Vertragskompetenz der Europäischen Union

More information here
(source: ESCLH Blog)

maandag 11 maart 2019

BOOK: Patrick MILTON, Michael AXWORTHY, and Brendan SIMMS, Towards a Westphalia for the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). ISBN 9780190947897, $39.95

(Source: OUP)

Oxford University Press has published a book that aims to draw lessons from the Treaties of Westphalia for the long wars in the Middle East today.   


It was the original forever war, which went on interminably, fuelled by religious fanaticism, personal ambition, fear of hegemony, and communal suspicion. It dragged in all the neighbouring powers. It was punctuated by repeated failed ceasefires. It inflicted suffering beyond belief and generated waves of refugees. No, this is not Syria today, but the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), which turned Germany and much of central Europe into a disaster zone.

The Thirty Years' War is often cited as a parallel in discussions of the Middle East. The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the conflict in 1648, has featured strongly in such discussions, usually with the observation that recent events in some parts of the region have seen the collapse of ideas of state sovereignty--ideas that supposedly originated with the 1648 settlement.

Axworthy, Milton and Simms argue that the Westphalian treaties, far from enshrining state sovereignty, in fact reconfigured and strengthened a structure for legal resolution of disputes, and provided for intervention by outside guarantor powers to uphold the peace settlement. This book argues that the history of Westphalia may hold the key to resolving the new long wars in the Middle East today.


Patrick Milton is a postdoctoral research fellow at Freie Universität Berlin, working on early modern Europe. Michael Axworthy is Senior Lecturer at the University of Exeter and author, inter alia, of Revolutionary Iran. Brendan Simms is Professor in the History of International Relations, University of Cambridge and author, inter alia, of Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy, 1453 to the Present.


Körber Foundation
Federal Foreign Office of Germany
1. Introduction
2. Challenges and Crises in the Middle East
3. From Religious Peace to the Thirty Years War: Multiple Crises in Europe and the Holy Roman Empire, 1555-1648
4. The Peace Congress of Münster and Osnabrück (1643-1648) and the Westphalian Order (1648-1806)
5. Parallels and Analogies
6. Lessons for the Middle East: Peacemaking mechanisms, Diplomatic techniques, and a new Regional Order

More information here
(source: ESCLH Blog)

vrijdag 8 maart 2019

BOOK: Anna CHADWICK, Law and the Political Economy of Hunger [History and Theory of International Law] (Oxford: OUP, 2019), 256 p. ISBN 9780198823940, 99 USD

(image source: OUP)

Book abstract:
This book is an inquiry into the role of law in the contemporary political economy of hunger. In the work of many international institutions, governments, and NGOs, law is represented as a solution to the persistence of hunger. This presentation is evident in the efforts to realize a human right to adequate food, as well as in the positioning of law, in the form of regulation, as a tool to protect society from 'unruly' markets. In this monograph, Anna Chadwick draws on theoretical work from a range of disciplines to challenge accounts that portray law's role in the context of hunger as exclusively remedial. The book takes as its starting point claims that financial traders 'caused' the 2007-8 global food crisis by speculating in financial instruments linked to the prices of staple grains. The introduction of new regulations to curb the 'excesses' of the financial sector in order to protect the food insecure reinforces the dominant perception that law can solve the problem. Chadwick investigates a number of different legal regimes spanning public international law, international economic law, transnational governance, private law, and human rights law to gather evidence for a counterclaim: law is part of the problem. The character of the contemporary global food system-a food system that is being progressively 'financialized'-owes everything to law. If world hunger is to be eradicated, Chadwick argues, then greater attention needs to be paid to how different legal regimes operate to consistently privilege the interests of the wealthy few over the needs of poor and the hungry.
On the author:
Anna Chadwick  is a Lord Kelvin Adam Smith Fellow at the University of Glasgow. She started her current job after completing a two-year Max Weber Fellowship at the European University Institute, in Florence. She was awarded her doctorate by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in November 2015, and holds a Masters Degree in Public International Law and International and UK Human Rights Law (LLM) from King's College London, and an LLB from the University of Leeds. Anna spent one year working for the legal charity, Reprieve, where she undertook investigation and research on death penalty cases. She is also part of a joint research initiative on food and finance. In 2017, she co-designed and taught a new Masters course 'Food, Law, and Finance' at International University College of Turin. Anna has also taught courses on International Human Rights Law, and World Hunger and the Global Legal Order.
(source: ESCLH Blog)

donderdag 7 maart 2019

CONFERENCE REPORT: Politics and the Histories of International Law (Heidelberg, MPIL, 15-16 FEB 2019)

(image source: ESCLH Blog)

The ESCLH Blog published a conference report on the JHIL/MPIL conference Politics and the Histories of International Law (see programme earlier on this blog).

First paragraph:
Telling a history of international law is every time a mode of echoing oneself in the present. The danger of a single story and its oppressive force to identities and peoples that are misrepresented or not represented in it have been stressed in recent years by many scholars, but not only them. It was perhaps most remarkably and famously spelled out by the Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in a TED talk already ten years ago: “I loved these American and British books I have read [as a child], they stirred my imagination and opened up new worlds for me. But their unintended consequence was that I did not know that people like me could exist in literature.”
Read more on the ESCLH Blog.

woensdag 6 maart 2019

ADVANCE ARTICLE: Jason YACKEE, "Investor-State Dispute Settlement at the Dawn of International Investment Law: France, Mauritania, and the Nationalization of the MIFERMA Iron Ore Operations" (American Journal of Legal History 2019)

(image source: OUP)

The case for the desirability of the modern system of investment treaty arbitration rests on certain stylized historical claims. Those claims serve to demonstrate that the pre-modern system of dealing with investor – state disputes was inferior compared to current arrangements, which allow foreign investors to initiate highly legalized (or “depoliticized”) arbitration against host state governments for alleged violations of investment treaties. The implication of the historical comparison is that we should accept, and perhaps even expand, investment treaty arbitration to avoid a return to a more dangerous practice. This article challenges the historicity of this standard story through an in-depth examination of an important but understudied episode of expropriation from the 1970s, Mauritania’s seizure of the MIFERMA iron ore operations. As I show below, politicized dispute settlement need not entail, nor even risk, resort to force. It can even be successful, especially where home and host state governments and the investor perceive mutual gains from continued cooperation. More generally, the article suggests the utility of micro-historical analysis of investor – state disputes as a methodology for gaining a more realistic understanding of how legal and diplomatic dispute settlement methods can interact to support negotiated outcomes.
Read more here.