CALL FOR PAPERS: ESIL IG History of International Law Research Forum Workshop 'Regulating Global Security: History of an Illusion'

 

ESIL IG History of International Law Research Forum Workshop

Regulating Global Security: History of an Illusion

Throughout history, with words and with deeds, international lawyers and activists have striven to eliminate war and conflict. Yet international law, the institutions it has built, and even the normative considerations it has engendered, have failed to guarantee global security and prevent interstate conflicts. Why has this happened? Why have so many past attempts to achieve a right and just world order failed? 

We invite the submission of papers on aspects of the history of international law and global security, including proposals on the following indicative themes:

- The role and relevance of international law in global security discourse;

- The concept of security in international law from a historical perspective;

- The role of states and non-state actors in shaping the regulation of global security;

- The impact of territorial and resource disputes on global security;

- Law-making in the history of global security;

- Development of environmental security in international law;

- Development of economic and financial security in international law;

- The role of international (judicial) institutions as guardians of global security;

- Development of hybrid means of warfare and their regulation;

- (Mis)understanding the power of regulation in the history of global security.

The workshop is expected to take place in advance of the ESIL Research Forum in Glasgow, 31 March – 1 April 2022, in a hybrid format, and we invite submissions for both physical and distant participation.

Please submit your abstract of no more than 500 words together with a short CV by 

31 January 2022 to markus.beham@uni-passau.de.

The Interest Group is unable to provide funding for travel and accommodation. Selected speakers will be expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation. Some ESIL travel grants and ESIL carers grants will be available to offer partial financial support to speakers who have exhausted other potential sources of funding.

Please see the ESIL website for all relevant information about the Research Forum. The Interest Group workshop is open to ESIL members and all participants are required to register for the Research Forum.

Steering Committee Members

Markus Beham – Jaanika Erne – John Morss – Florenz Volkaert

ESIL IGHIL Pre-Conference event: The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community (Catania, ESIL Research Forum, 15 APR 2021, ONLINE))

 

(image: Catania Port; source: Wikimedia Commons)

 

Welcome (09:00 CET)

Presentations (09:05 CET)

09:05

‘Louis Bara (1821-1857) and the Liberal-scientific Restatement of International Law in the Nineteenth Century Peace Movement’, Wouter De Rycke (Brussels) (30 minutes)

Discussion (15 minutes)

09:50

‘The Role of the Brazilian Academic Elite in the “Civilization Project” during the XIX Century: An Analysis from the Example of the Whitening of the Population’, Luisa Cortat Simonetti Goncalves-Renato Coutinho (Maastricht)

Discussion (15 minutes)

Break (5 minutes)

10:40

‘Views in the Literature on Interdisciplinarity Research Between History and Law’ Jaanika Erne (Tartu, ESIL IGHIL Steering Committee)

Discussion (15 minutes)

Interest Group Meeting (11:25 CET)

Registration is mandatory, until 23:59 CET on 12 April. Click here.

ESIL RESEARCH FORUM CATANIA: Deadline for registration extended (12 APRIL 2021)

(image source: unict)

The organising committee of the 2021 ESIL Research Forum in Catania (where the IGHIL organizes a pre-conference event) have communicated that the deadline for registration has been extended to 12 April 2021.

Further details earlier on our blog.

See also the event's website for further information.

ESIL RESEARCH FORUM CATANIA: Registration mandatory (by 8 APRIL 2021)

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

The ESIL IGHIL organizes a pre-conference event at the ESIL Research Forum in Catania (see program here).

The organising committee and the ESIL Board request all participants (presenters, but also the audience) to register by 8 April:  http://www.2021esilcatania.unict.it/register. 

ESIL RESEARCH FORUM CATANIA: Pre-Event Meeting, Research Forum “Solidarity: the Quest for Founding Utopias of International Law" (15 APR 2021, Online)

(image: Catania Port; source: Wikimedia Commons)

 

Welcome (09:00 CET)

Presentations (09:05 CET)

09:05

‘Louis Bara (1821-1857) and the Liberal-scientific Restatement of International Law in the Nineteenth Century Peace Movement’, Wouter De Rycke (Brussels) (30 minutes)

Discussion (15 minutes)

09:50

‘The Role of the Brazilian Academic Elite in the “Civilization Project” during the XIX Century: An Analysis from the Example of the Whitening of the Population’, Luisa Cortat Simonetti Goncalves-Renato Coutinho (Maastricht)

Discussion (15 minutes)

Break (5 minutes)

10:40

‘Views in the Literature on Interdisciplinarity Research Between History and Law’ Jaanika Erne (Tartu, ESIL IGHIL Steering Committee)

Discussion (15 minutes)

Interest Group Meeting (11:25 CET)

The Zoom-link or registration procedure will be shared as soon as possible.

ESIL RESEARCH FORUM CATANIA: Postponed to 15-16 APR 2021

(image source: ESIL)

The ESIL Secretariat announced the postponement of the ESIL Research Forum in Catania to 15-16 April 2021.

More information on the ESIL Website.

Our IG Pre-Conference event's line-up (initally foreseen for 23 April 2020) can be consulted here.

CANCELLATION: ESIL Research Forum Catania (Postponed, 29-30 OCT 2020)

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

The ESIL Executive Committee has met and decided to postpone the ESIL Research Forum in Catania to 29-30 October 2020.

It is our regret to inform our readers of this decision. Yet, the COVID19-crisis imposed itself in all its rigour on all activities.

PRE-CONFERENCE EVENT: The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community (ESIL Research Forum, Catania, 23 APR 2020)

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

2020 ESIL RESEARCH FORUM

RECTORATE BUILDING, PIAZZA UNIVERSITÀ, CATANIA

09.30-11.00 – Session One

‘Interdisciplinary Research Between History and Law’, Markus Beham (Passau)

‘Views in the Literature on Interdisciplinary Research Between History and Law’, Jaanika Erne (Tartu)

‘Louis Bara (1821-1857) and the Liberal-scientific Restatement of International Law in the Nineteenth Century Peace Movement’, Wouter De Rycke (Brussels)

Comments


————


11.00-11.30 – Coffee break


————


11.30-13.00 – Session Two

‘The Role of the Brazilian Academic Elite in the “Civilization Project” during the XIX Century: An Analysis from the Example of the Whitening of the Population’, Luisa Cortat Simonetti Goncalves-Renato Coutinho (Maastricht)

‘Utopian Prohibition: Elihu Root, James Brown Scott and the Roots of the First International Drug Laws’, Kojo Koram (UCL)

Comments

————


13.00 – Conclusion

Discussion of Future IG Events


————

The European Society of International Law Interest Group on the History of International Law Steering Committee:

Markus Beham – Frederik Dhont – Jaanika Erne – Jan Lemnitzer – John Mors

ESIL IGHIL Pre-Conference event: The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community (Catania, ESIL Research Forum, 23 APR 2020)

2020 ESIL RESEARCH FORUM

RECTORATE BUILDING, PIAZZA UNIVERSITÀ, CATANIA

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

09.15-11.00 – Session One

‘The Role of the Brazilian Academic Elite in the “Civilization Project” during the XIX Century: An Analysis from the Example of the Whitening of the Population’, Luisa Cortat Simonetti Goncalves-Renato Coutinho (Maastricht)


‘Louis Bara (1821-1857) and the Liberal-scientific Restatement of International Law in the Nineteenth Century Peace Movement’, Wouter De Rycke (Brussels)


Commentator: Jaanika Erne (Tartu)

————

11.00-11.30 – Coffee break

————

11.30-12.30 – Session Two

‘Utopian Prohibition: Elihu Root, James Brown Scott and the Roots of the First International Drug Laws’, Kojo Koram (UCL)


Commentator: Markus Beham (Passau)


————


12.30-13.00 – Conclusion

‘Interdisciplinary Research Between History and Law’ and Discussion of Future IG Events – Markus Beham and Jaanika Erne

See ESIL Website.

REMINDER: Pre-Conference Event Interest Group History of International Law: "The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community" (23-24 APR 2020) (DEADLINE 15 JAN 2020)

(image source: ESIL)

The ESIL Interest Group History of International Law will host a pre-conference workshop on “The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community” for graduate and Ph.D. students as well as early career scholars at the 2020 ESIL Research Forum at the University of Catania. The event is destined at uniting papers from various legal traditions and cultures, across all ages. We also invite contributions from disciplines other than law.
We are especially interested in papers investigating:

• The intellectual genesis of the community of states
• The interplay between religion, philosophy and the foundational utopias of international law
• The political use and instrumentalisation of international law by political actors
• The appropriation and acculturation process of European international legal principles in the age of Western imperialism

(see also ESIL Website)

CALL FOR PAPERS: Pre-Conference Event Interest Group History of International Law: "The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community" (23-24 APR 2020) (DEADLINE 15 JAN 2020)

(image source: ESIL)

The ESIL Interest Group History of International Law will host a pre-conference workshop on “The Founding of Solidarity in the International Community” for graduate and Ph.D. students as well as early career scholars at the 2020 ESIL Research Forum at the University of Catania. The event is destined at uniting papers from various legal traditions and cultures, across all ages. We also invite contributions from disciplines other than law.
We are especially interested in papers investigating:

• The intellectual genesis of the community of states
• The interplay between religion, philosophy and the foundational utopias of international law
• The political use and instrumentalisation of international law by political actors
• The appropriation and acculturation process of European international legal principles in the age of Western imperialism

(see also ESIL Website)

CALL FOR PAPERS: ESIL Research Forum 2020: "Solidarity: The Quest for Founding Utopias of International Law" (Catania: Università degli Studi di Catania, 23-24 Apr 2020); DEADLINE 30 SEP 2019

(image source: blogger)

The 2020 ESIL Research Forum will take place on Thursday 23 and Friday 24 April 2020 at the Department of Law, University of Catania, Italy. The ESIL Research Forum is a scholarly conference that promotes engagement with research in progress by members of the Society. It has a small and intensive format. The Forum targets scholars at an early stage of their careers. Approximately 15-25 paper submissions will be selected. During the Forum, selected speakers will receive comments on their presentations from members of the ESIL Board and invited experts.

The 2020 Research Forum addresses the topic: “Solidarity: The Quest for Founding Utopias of International Law”

Solidarity is a founding utopia of international law. It has long appeared in the legal discourses of leading international law scholars as a value and political concept incorporated into international legal norms and evidenced in multilateral and bilateral treaties as an essential condition of interstate cooperation. As a principle of international law, it is mostly identifiable through the trust and confidence shown by states to one another in order to reap the mutual benefits of cooperation. In a broader sense, it also reveals a highly ambiguous ethical ideal – not extraneous to the ‘civilizing mission’ – of a world order of interdependent states and communities addressing shared needs in a spirit of global cooperation and mutual responsibility.

In response to the new global challenges faced by today’s international legal system, solidarity has acquired a special prominence with unprecedented developments in various fields of international law (e.g. trade law, environmental law, humanitarian law, disaster law, health law) while its utopian dimension has been stressed and expanded towards new directions.

The 2020 ESIL Research Forum aims to inspire thoughtful reflections on the genealogy of international solidarity by focusing on the actors, norms and processes influencing its evolution over time. Beyond the search for definitions, the scope of the Forum is to explore transformations and practical manifestations of this longstanding principle in the international legal community. Special attention will be given to international solidarity as interpreted by international and domestic courts and tribunals and to the analysis of some key areas where solidaristic paradigms have led to either positive outcomes or controversial repercussions.

Preference will be given to proposals in one of the following areas:
1. The historical boundaries of international solidarity
 2. Solidarity and private law analogies
3. The invention of European solidarity
4. A human rights-based solidarity? Universal vs regional approaches
5. Peace and security: solidarity and the United Nations
6. International solidarity in emergency situations
7. Social solidarity economy and sustainable development
8. Civil society and transnational solidarity
9. International solidarity and burden-sharing: migration and refugee law
10. International solidarity and current trends: populism, nationalism vs multilateralism

Abstracts (of no more than 750 words) should be submitted to 2020esil.rf.catania@lex.unict.it by Monday 30 September 2019. Please include the following information with your abstract: your name, affiliation, email address, whether you are an ESIL member, plus a one-page curriculum vitae. Successful applicants will be notified by email by 4 November 2019. Complete paper drafts will be required by 19 February 2020. Papers may in due course be published in the ESIL SSRN Conference Paper Series.

All those who take part in the Forum are expected to be ESIL members at the time of their participation. Selected speakers will be expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation. Some ESIL travel grants and ESIL carers grants will be available to offer partial financial support to speakers who have exhausted other potential sources of funding. Speakers will be informed of several hotels that offer preferential rates to Research Forum participants. Lunch will be provided on both days, and a dinner for presenters, commentators and ESIL Board members will be hosted on the evening of Thursday 23 April 2020.

CONFERENCE REPORT: ESIL IGHIL Pre-Conference Event, Research Forum (Göttingen: University of Göttingen, 3 APR 2019) (by Jan LEMNITZER, IGHIL President)

The ESIL Interest Group History of International Law held its pre-conference workshop on "The Rule of Law and International Law in Historical Perspective" at the University of Goettingen on 3 April 2019.

The presenters moved backwards in chronology, with Denise Wohlwend (University of Fribourg (CH)) exploring the recent past of the ‘rule of law’ concept within the United Nations. The concept was established as an UN priority at the World Summit in 2005 (that famously also birthed the concept of R2P), which led to the founding of the rule of law assistance unit in the Secretariat and a series of debates in the 6th Committee of the General Assembly. Predictably, the fact that there is no agreed definition of what ‘rule of law’ means led to a series of debates within the committee as to what precisely the concept entails. While some states saw it as one of the main principle of political morality, others favoured a more legalistic approach and insisted it was primarily about the foundations of a functioning legal order, such as states following court decisions, the separation of power or adherence to international law. The more detailed the debates got, the more disagreements appeared: should the rule of law be seen as a key tool to establishing stability in transitional justice processes, or does that denigrate the concepts since it should always be seen as a value in itself? Wohlwend ended by suggesting the framework of a ‘contested concept’ to further the debate while acknowledging the obvious disagreements. In a lively and well-informed exchange with the presenter, Hannah Birkenkötter (Humboldt University Berlin) pointed out that a lot of the real action on the rule of law was not in the GA debates, but the annual reports of the General Secretary, and that the secretariat had managed to hide a number of activities under the rule of law label that would otherwise have been controversial among member states. Both agreed that ‘rule of law’ seems to have replaced the earlier ubiquitous use of ‘democracy’, perhaps since it was deemed more appropriate to a post-Iraq War world.

The next presenter, Premislaw Tacik (Jagellionian University, Cracow), explored the ways in which the ‘rule of law’ concept has been employed in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Given the traditional disputes with Russia, but especially the more recent conflicts with the governments in Poland and Hungary, this is a highly political question. Tacik argued that the Court avoided legal theory on the issue, but often invokes the preamble of the Convention as a ‘guiding principle of interpretation’. In practice, this can mean both the identification of the rule of law as basic equality before the law and the provision of legal protections, but also the endorsement of ‘thick’ interpretations of the concept that see the rule of law as the guarantor of democracy and human rights. In the discussion, session chair and IG convenor Jan Lemnitzer (University of Southern Denmark) noted that the court seemed to sometimes engage in the defence of lofty principles while at other times focused its decisions on seemingly small procedural details. Tacik agreed that we need a conceptual bridge between both levels, since in reality they can not be separated in the court’s struggle with those governments that are determined to disrespect the rule of law.

In the second panel, Ryan Mitchell (Chinese University of Hong Kong) explored the political thinking of Hans Kelsen and pointed out that scholars tend to focus too much on his early writings establishing a vision of the rule of law built around the pacta sunt servanda principle, while ignoring his later works. Here, Kelsen needed to deal with the tension that he supported the Nuremberg trials and the ideas behind them, but that his endorsement of a legal system that is capable of defining a new crime (aggression) and establishing individual guilt of those who had committed it before the binding definition meant a real crisis for his system of legal thought. After initially publishing rather poor arguments such as that those who committed particularly horrific crimes lose the right not to be prosecuted in dubious ways, Kelsen changed his thinking (partly influenced by his controversial positions during the Korean War) and now highlighted the fact that a norm without a sanction is not a norm in a meaningful sense.

Finally, Alan Nissel began by pointing out that the history of arbitration as it currently stands focuses on a small number of prominent cases involving the United States or Britain. He argued that the large number of cases in Latin America in the 19^th and early 20^th century are particularly revealing since they often involved disputes between Western investors or creditors and local interests. The pattern that emerges upon a closer look is a rule of law mask for capitalist interests that strongly favoured European or American investors while expecting the locals to be pleased that arbitration had begun to replace armed state intervention. These developments are not just of historical interest since the logic employed in these cases became highly influential in the formation of the modern doctrine of state responsibility, a cornerstone of contemporary international law. As Jan Lemnitzer pointed out in his panel summary, this type of research is particularly welcome since it add  to our empirical foundation for two separate developments in our field: a rethinking of the history of arbitration, and a lifting of the boundary between public international law and the history of private international law and investment disputes.

The next meeting of the IG History of International Law will take place just before the Annual conference in Athens in September and look at ‘New Histories of Sovereigns and Sovereignty’ – the call for papers is still open until 30 April!

ESIL IGHIL Pre-Conference Workshop: The Rule of Law in Historical Perspective, ESIL Research Forum Göttingen, 3 APR 2019

(image source: Georg August Universität Göttingen)

Denise Wohlwend (University of Firbourg (CH)), The Rule of Law in the Debates of the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly – Reflections on the Evolution and Universality of the Concept
Abstract:

The rule of law provides that people should be ruled by the law. Despite its prominence in today’s legal and political discourse on a global scale, the exact content of the rule of law remains contested. Legal scholars commonly distinguish between formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law, which are often associated with positivistic and naturalistic accounts of law, respectively. Within the United Nations (UN), an “autonomous notion” of the rule of law has been emerging since the 2000s. Importantly, in 2005 the UN member states recognized the rule of law as one of the organization’s “core values and principles”, as well as “the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels”. In 2006, the UN General Assembly decided by resolution A/RES/61/39 to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-second session the item “The rule of law at the national and international levels”. Since then, it has debated the topic, selecting different subtopics, through its Sixth Committee. This has resulted in the adoption of annual resolutions reaffirming the UN member states’ commitment to the rule of law at the national and international levels. Despite multiple references to the rule of law contained in UN documents, it is not entirely clear what the rule of law at both the national and international levels amounts to within the UN. The UN member states disagree about its exact content. True, frequent reference has been made to the definition of the rule of law put forward by the UN Secretary-General in his 2004 Report “The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies”. Moreover, it has been held that over the years, the member states of the UN have settled on this conception of the rule of law. However, so far, a comprehensive analysis of the debates about the rule of law at the national and international levels within the Sixth Committee is missing. In this paper, I aim to fill this gap. I intend to analyze the discussions about the rule of law at the national and international levels conducted by the representatives of UN member states within the Sixth Committee, from 2006 until today. I examine (1) whether the expressed views reflect the conventional distinction between formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law, and (2) whether a single or common conception of the rule of law may be deemed to have emerged. I shall then use the findings of the analysis as a starting point for a more general reflection on the issue of the universality of the concept of the rule of law. In short, the rule of law can be deemed universal as long as there are common elements that make it the same concept, in spite of differences in its parochial interpretation. Conversely, if there are no such elements, the universal character of the rule of law may be questioned. Of course, a consideration of the universality of the rule of law concept requires a clarification of the (possible) meaning(s) of universality. Moreover, in the paper, I shall also deal with the question of whether, and if so how, the issue of the universality of the concept of the rule of law is connected to positivistic and naturalistic approaches to the concept of law.

Premislaw Tacik (Jagellionian University, Krakow),
The Evolution of the Rule of Law in the Framework of the European Convention on Human Rights
Abstract:

The presentation aims to reconstruct the outline of history of how the concept of the rule of law was understood and applied in the regime of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in regard to ECtHR’s and EComHR’s jurisprudence. Even though the maintenance of the rule of law is one of the goals of the Council of Europe and part of the ECHR’s preamble, historically it was not understood as a source of directly enforceable rights. As stated by the ECtHR in an early judgement in Golder v. the UK, it was, however, a point of reference in interpretation of particular rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, particularly when their limitations were at stake. Through this linkage, the ECtHR made some cautious steps to make the rule of law a living and effective concept. It influenced the establishment of standards concerning the quality of laws limiting rights and freedoms (as in Tourancheau et July v. France case) and shaped the understanding of the position of the judiciary under the ECHR. In the latter regard, the ECtHR for a long time displayed a restrained approach and gave a significant leeway to the states in regulating the status and nomination of judges. Nonetheless, in the recent years a different trend might be observed. It seems that the ECtHR developed the standards of the rule of law in the response to the illiberal backlash. The Baka v. Hungary case might be interpreted as a milestone in this regard: the ECtHR declared the violation of Art. 6 § 1 ECHR consisting in terminating the status of a judge via targeted legislation, by which Hungarian authorities wanted to prevent the president of the Hungarian Supreme Court to continue his term. In this ruling, the concept of the rule of law links the standards of the independence of the judiciary – now influenced by soft law of the CoE – with requirements of proper legislation. Moreover, by breathing a new life into Article 18 in the Merabishvili v. Georgia case the ECtHR seems to notice that the rule of law must be defended by preventing the states from executing their illegitimate goals in restricting rights and freedoms. All in all, it might be argued that the approach to the rule of law under the ECHR is in dynamic transformation: the Court seems to pass from restrained interpretation to active support of the rule of law in confrontation with the rise of illiberalism.

Alan Nissel, Capitalism and the Evolution of State Responsibility: How US Law became Binding upon New States and, Ultimately, Everyone Else
Abstract:

Since the late nineteenth century, Anglo-American lawyers have employed domestic standards of property protection to hold Latin American governments responsibility for injuries suffered by Western aliens. Barely hidden behind this rule of law mask was a capitalist structure of economic expectations that favored Western over local individuals. The doctrine of state responsibility emerged, historians explain, as a mechanism for fostering the peaceful resolution of international claims. The idea was that arguing over legal norms – by professional lawyers in third party courts and tribunals – was certainly preferable to diplomatic and military alternatives. There is data to point to that indicates a happy correlation: the establishment of state responsibility has coincided with the rise of international arbitration and the demise of force interventions. This result has convinced many that international law, despite its lack of any police force, can finally be described as positive law. Because there are legal consequences for international breaches, international law must be binding. Today, state responsibility is the sacred cow of international lawyers, assuring us of the reality of their cause. However, the doctrine of state responsibility is not just a legal norm of peaceful dispute resolution; neither is it is simply a neutral procedure of international arbitration. It is a framework of capitalist values that was imposed by Anglo-American diplomats to provide better than local protection to their nationals residing in Latin America. The evolution of state responsibility is a story of Anglo-American triumph in the international debates over the international minimum standard of care and about the normative basis for recognizing States, of admitting nations to international organizations and of identifying them as international personalities. The historic success of State responsibility is, thus, not just a rule of law narrative; it is continued evidence of how Western imperial values underpins the primary enforcement regime of international law: State responsibility.

Ryan Mitchell (Chinese University of Hong Kong), International Rule of Law and the Problem of Legal Sanction: War and the Zwangsordnung
Abstract:

The project of using international law to prohibit wars of aggression grew steadily in importance from the Hague Conference era through World War One, culminating with the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. While there has been much recent discussion of the Pact, and debates about its role in originating the crime of aggression (most recently consolidated via the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute), there has been less detailed examination of the specific contemporary debates as to the legal validity of the Pact's norm seeking to prohibit aggression. The views of prominent legal scholars of the time can be distinguished into three main contending positions, each of which then had significant influences upon the subsequent theory and practice of public international law. These three perspectives can be summarized as positing either that 1) the Pact independently abolished the validity of all wars per the principle pacta sunt servanda or as an element of customary international law (the view of Quincy Wright, Hersch Lauterpacht, and others); 2) the Pact had no meaningful legal effect due to its broad exceptions and reservations, as well as the fundamental impossibility of restricting states’ traditional rights to wage war (Carl Schmitt's view); or 3) the existing jus ad bellum could not in fact be revised by the Pact per se, but only by an international organization exercising an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force (Kelsen's view). This paper explains the evidence, methodology, and theoretical implications of each of these perspectives, including the context of the scholars and states who were their respective advocates. It concludes by endorsing the third view, exemplified by Hans Kelsen in his critical analysis of legal prohibitions of war, arguing that the mere disavowal by states of their rights to wage war (as reflected in the Pact) does not equate to a legal prohibition of war under international law unless there is a centralized sanctioning authority enforcing that prohibition, as was introduced under the UN Charter in 1945. This view, while conservative in some ways, also provides the foundation for Kelsen's related claim that international law as a "Zwangsordnung," or sanction-based order, is potentially as robust and enforceable a system of legal norms as is any domestic legal system.

Andre Nunes Chaib (MPI Luxemburg), The Various Sides of a Coin: Ideas of Rule of Law in the Ideology of International Adjudication
Abstract:

International courts have been both the object of praise and criticism throughout their existence. It is also well-known that their creation, as well as the use of international arbitration, was also always replenished with controversies. Nevertheless, despite controversies, international courts and international arbitration made their way into the life of states and individuals during the last century and had come to be accepted as important institutions in international life. Much of the backlash and the critique on international adjudication nowadays come from a tension existing between the various ideologies pervading the imaginary that informs the work of international courts. This tension finds its origin in the historical debates at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century involving international lawyers and diplomats, mainly from Europe and the United States about the concept of the rule of law at the international law and what role should arbitration or permanent international courts should have in enforcing it. In light of these debates, this paper will look into the ideologies that informed these debates and how this tension – resulting in utopic positions but also in stark criticisms – created the legal and political imaginary for international adjudication until today. Much has been written and said about the role of US international lawyers, such as Elihu Root, in pushing forward the movement towards the creation of permanent international adjudicatory mechanisms and the resistance some of them faced by European international lawyers, fearful of what courts at the international level might do to their then still strong empires’ sovereignty. Although these two sides are revealing of a particular ideal of the international rule of law, it does not tell the whole story. Therefore, this paper hopes to shed light to other ideas coming from other parts of the world, which particularly during the Second Hague Conference in 1907, influenced and impacted the ideology of international adjudication and the ideal of international rule of law that was formed at that time and that remains pervasive to these days. Individuals, such as the Brazilian Ruy Barbosa, were known to have been staunch defenders of sovereign equality and offered specific ideas about the nature and function of a potential international court. This paper hopes to clarify these different positions that were put forward at that time by not only US or European lawyers, but also by individuals of the Global South. In doing so, it hopes to show how specific ideas regarding the international, advanced by cosmopolitan thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, but also lawyers such as Andres Bello and Carlos Calvo were decisive in the formation of the ideology of modern international adjudication. Such an inquiry should also reveal the origins of the tensions existing nowadays regarding international adjudication and aid in the understanding of its criticism.

The conveners of the Steering Committee for the ESIL Interest Group History of International Law:
Jan Lemnitzer (Southern Denmark)
Markus Beham (Passau)
Martin Clark (LSE)
Frederik Dhondt (Brussels/Antwerp)
Hossein Piran (US/Iran Claims Tribunal)

ESIL IGHIL Pre-Conference Workshop: The Rule of Law in Historical Perspective, ESIL Research Forum Göttingen, 3 APR 2019

(image source: Georg August Universität Göttingen)

Denise Wohlwend (University of Firbourg (CH)), The Rule of Law in the Debates of the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly – Reflections on the Evolution and Universality of the Concept
Abstract:

The rule of law provides that people should be ruled by the law. Despite its prominence in today’s legal and political discourse on a global scale, the exact content of the rule of law remains contested. Legal scholars commonly distinguish between formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law, which are often associated with positivistic and naturalistic accounts of law, respectively. Within the United Nations (UN), an “autonomous notion” of the rule of law has been emerging since the 2000s. Importantly, in 2005 the UN member states recognized the rule of law as one of the organization’s “core values and principles”, as well as “the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels”. In 2006, the UN General Assembly decided by resolution A/RES/61/39 to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-second session the item “The rule of law at the national and international levels”. Since then, it has debated the topic, selecting different subtopics, through its Sixth Committee. This has resulted in the adoption of annual resolutions reaffirming the UN member states’ commitment to the rule of law at the national and international levels. Despite multiple references to the rule of law contained in UN documents, it is not entirely clear what the rule of law at both the national and international levels amounts to within the UN. The UN member states disagree about its exact content. True, frequent reference has been made to the definition of the rule of law put forward by the UN Secretary-General in his 2004 Report “The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies”. Moreover, it has been held that over the years, the member states of the UN have settled on this conception of the rule of law. However, so far, a comprehensive analysis of the debates about the rule of law at the national and international levels within the Sixth Committee is missing. In this paper, I aim to fill this gap. I intend to analyze the discussions about the rule of law at the national and international levels conducted by the representatives of UN member states within the Sixth Committee, from 2006 until today. I examine (1) whether the expressed views reflect the conventional distinction between formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law, and (2) whether a single or common conception of the rule of law may be deemed to have emerged. I shall then use the findings of the analysis as a starting point for a more general reflection on the issue of the universality of the concept of the rule of law. In short, the rule of law can be deemed universal as long as there are common elements that make it the same concept, in spite of differences in its parochial interpretation. Conversely, if there are no such elements, the universal character of the rule of law may be questioned. Of course, a consideration of the universality of the rule of law concept requires a clarification of the (possible) meaning(s) of universality. Moreover, in the paper, I shall also deal with the question of whether, and if so how, the issue of the universality of the concept of the rule of law is connected to positivistic and naturalistic approaches to the concept of law.

Premislaw Tacik (Jagellionian University, Krakow),
The Evolution of the Rule of Law in the Framework of the European Convention on Human Rights
Abstract:

The presentation aims to reconstruct the outline of history of how the concept of the rule of law was understood and applied in the regime of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in regard to ECtHR’s and EComHR’s jurisprudence. Even though the maintenance of the rule of law is one of the goals of the Council of Europe and part of the ECHR’s preamble, historically it was not understood as a source of directly enforceable rights. As stated by the ECtHR in an early judgement in Golder v. the UK, it was, however, a point of reference in interpretation of particular rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, particularly when their limitations were at stake. Through this linkage, the ECtHR made some cautious steps to make the rule of law a living and effective concept. It influenced the establishment of standards concerning the quality of laws limiting rights and freedoms (as in Tourancheau et July v. France case) and shaped the understanding of the position of the judiciary under the ECHR. In the latter regard, the ECtHR for a long time displayed a restrained approach and gave a significant leeway to the states in regulating the status and nomination of judges. Nonetheless, in the recent years a different trend might be observed. It seems that the ECtHR developed the standards of the rule of law in the response to the illiberal backlash. The Baka v. Hungary case might be interpreted as a milestone in this regard: the ECtHR declared the violation of Art. 6 § 1 ECHR consisting in terminating the status of a judge via targeted legislation, by which Hungarian authorities wanted to prevent the president of the Hungarian Supreme Court to continue his term. In this ruling, the concept of the rule of law links the standards of the independence of the judiciary – now influenced by soft law of the CoE – with requirements of proper legislation. Moreover, by breathing a new life into Article 18 in the Merabishvili v. Georgia case the ECtHR seems to notice that the rule of law must be defended by preventing the states from executing their illegitimate goals in restricting rights and freedoms. All in all, it might be argued that the approach to the rule of law under the ECHR is in dynamic transformation: the Court seems to pass from restrained interpretation to active support of the rule of law in confrontation with the rise of illiberalism.

Alan Nissel, Capitalism and the Evolution of State Responsibility: How US Law became Binding upon New States and, Ultimately, Everyone Else
Abstract:

Since the late nineteenth century, Anglo-American lawyers have employed domestic standards of property protection to hold Latin American governments responsibility for injuries suffered by Western aliens. Barely hidden behind this rule of law mask was a capitalist structure of economic expectations that favored Western over local individuals. The doctrine of state responsibility emerged, historians explain, as a mechanism for fostering the peaceful resolution of international claims. The idea was that arguing over legal norms – by professional lawyers in third party courts and tribunals – was certainly preferable to diplomatic and military alternatives. There is data to point to that indicates a happy correlation: the establishment of state responsibility has coincided with the rise of international arbitration and the demise of force interventions. This result has convinced many that international law, despite its lack of any police force, can finally be described as positive law. Because there are legal consequences for international breaches, international law must be binding. Today, state responsibility is the sacred cow of international lawyers, assuring us of the reality of their cause. However, the doctrine of state responsibility is not just a legal norm of peaceful dispute resolution; neither is it is simply a neutral procedure of international arbitration. It is a framework of capitalist values that was imposed by Anglo-American diplomats to provide better than local protection to their nationals residing in Latin America. The evolution of state responsibility is a story of Anglo-American triumph in the international debates over the international minimum standard of care and about the normative basis for recognizing States, of admitting nations to international organizations and of identifying them as international personalities. The historic success of State responsibility is, thus, not just a rule of law narrative; it is continued evidence of how Western imperial values underpins the primary enforcement regime of international law: State responsibility.

Ryan Mitchell (Chinese University of Hong Kong), International Rule of Law and the Problem of Legal Sanction: War and the Zwangsordnung
Abstract:

The project of using international law to prohibit wars of aggression grew steadily in importance from the Hague Conference era through World War One, culminating with the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. While there has been much recent discussion of the Pact, and debates about its role in originating the crime of aggression (most recently consolidated via the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute), there has been less detailed examination of the specific contemporary debates as to the legal validity of the Pact's norm seeking to prohibit aggression. The views of prominent legal scholars of the time can be distinguished into three main contending positions, each of which then had significant influences upon the subsequent theory and practice of public international law. These three perspectives can be summarized as positing either that 1) the Pact independently abolished the validity of all wars per the principle pacta sunt servanda or as an element of customary international law (the view of Quincy Wright, Hersch Lauterpacht, and others); 2) the Pact had no meaningful legal effect due to its broad exceptions and reservations, as well as the fundamental impossibility of restricting states’ traditional rights to wage war (Carl Schmitt's view); or 3) the existing jus ad bellum could not in fact be revised by the Pact per se, but only by an international organization exercising an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force (Kelsen's view). This paper explains the evidence, methodology, and theoretical implications of each of these perspectives, including the context of the scholars and states who were their respective advocates. It concludes by endorsing the third view, exemplified by Hans Kelsen in his critical analysis of legal prohibitions of war, arguing that the mere disavowal by states of their rights to wage war (as reflected in the Pact) does not equate to a legal prohibition of war under international law unless there is a centralized sanctioning authority enforcing that prohibition, as was introduced under the UN Charter in 1945. This view, while conservative in some ways, also provides the foundation for Kelsen's related claim that international law as a "Zwangsordnung," or sanction-based order, is potentially as robust and enforceable a system of legal norms as is any domestic legal system.

Andre Nunes Chaib (MPI Luxemburg), The Various Sides of a Coin: Ideas of Rule of Law in the Ideology of International Adjudication
Abstract:

International courts have been both the object of praise and criticism throughout their existence. It is also well-known that their creation, as well as the use of international arbitration, was also always replenished with controversies. Nevertheless, despite controversies, international courts and international arbitration made their way into the life of states and individuals during the last century and had come to be accepted as important institutions in international life. Much of the backlash and the critique on international adjudication nowadays come from a tension existing between the various ideologies pervading the imaginary that informs the work of international courts. This tension finds its origin in the historical debates at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century involving international lawyers and diplomats, mainly from Europe and the United States about the concept of the rule of law at the international law and what role should arbitration or permanent international courts should have in enforcing it. In light of these debates, this paper will look into the ideologies that informed these debates and how this tension – resulting in utopic positions but also in stark criticisms – created the legal and political imaginary for international adjudication until today. Much has been written and said about the role of US international lawyers, such as Elihu Root, in pushing forward the movement towards the creation of permanent international adjudicatory mechanisms and the resistance some of them faced by European international lawyers, fearful of what courts at the international level might do to their then still strong empires’ sovereignty. Although these two sides are revealing of a particular ideal of the international rule of law, it does not tell the whole story. Therefore, this paper hopes to shed light to other ideas coming from other parts of the world, which particularly during the Second Hague Conference in 1907, influenced and impacted the ideology of international adjudication and the ideal of international rule of law that was formed at that time and that remains pervasive to these days. Individuals, such as the Brazilian Ruy Barbosa, were known to have been staunch defenders of sovereign equality and offered specific ideas about the nature and function of a potential international court. This paper hopes to clarify these different positions that were put forward at that time by not only US or European lawyers, but also by individuals of the Global South. In doing so, it hopes to show how specific ideas regarding the international, advanced by cosmopolitan thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, but also lawyers such as Andres Bello and Carlos Calvo were decisive in the formation of the ideology of modern international adjudication. Such an inquiry should also reveal the origins of the tensions existing nowadays regarding international adjudication and aid in the understanding of its criticism.

The conveners of the Steering Committee for the ESIL Interest Group History of International Law:
Jan Lemnitzer (Southern Denmark)
Markus Beham (Passau)
Martin Clark (LSE)
Frederik Dhondt (Brussels/Antwerp)
Hossein Piran (US/Iran Claims Tribunal)

REMINDER: CALL FOR PAPERS: The rule of law and international law in historical perspective (IGHIL Event, ESIL Research Forum Göttingen, 4-5 APR 2019); DEADLINE 30 NOV 2018

(image source: ESIL)

The question of how to settle and enforce norms in the international sphere without a central authority has been a key debate in international law for centuries. While the gradual extension of an international order supported by multilateral treaties and courts was seen as a natural and logical development of international society in the decades following the end of the Cold War, the recent challenges to the very idea of a rules-based international order call for fresh perspectives on the idea and development of the rule of law in the international sphere. How did the concept emerge, how did it evolve over time, and how different is its history in the domestic and the international context?

Moreover, the Rule of Law can be envisaged under a double perspective. On the one hand, it expresses a philosophical and theoretical construct, whose intellectual genealogy conforms to that of the development of international legal thinking over time and in several legal cultures. On the other hand, the rule of law can be used instrumentally as an ideological discourse to legitimate far more basic political instincts and interest. Its invocation is not always conformable to actual legal practice. The Interest Group especially welcomes papers addressing the complex articulation of these two strands in historical cases, illustrated through primary source-research.

Possible topics might include:

·         How have international institutions responded to previous challenges of the very idea of the rule of law in international affairs?
·         How has the extent to which a state respects the rule of law in the domestic sphere influenced their behavior within the international community?
·         Has the meaning of the term ‘rule of law’ changed over time, and is it a universal concept? Does it have different connotations in the natural law or the positivist tradition? How have regional attempts to establish the rule of law influenced the international level?
·         When did we begin to have the ambition to regulate and enforce matters at a global level? How has the creation and enforcement of rules changed since the UN system was set up after the Second World War?
·         What was the impact of the rise of arbitration and international courts? Were they the consequence of a growing belief in the rule of law or drivers of this development?
·         How effective has the rule of law been in defining and protecting global commons (e.g. the success or failure of legal efforts to protect the environment)?
·         Has the ‘rule of law’ evolved differently in different policy areas such trade and investment law, communications or the laws of war?

Abstracts (300 words) must be submitted no later than 30 November 2018 to esilighil@gmail.com on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Interest Group, which shall collectively supervise the blind peer-review process. All those who take part in the ESIL Research Forum, at an Interest Group event and/or in the main Forum, are expected to be ESIL members at the time of their participation. Selected speakers will be expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation. Some ESIL travel grants will be available to offer partial financial support to speakers who have exhausted other potential sources of funding. Please see the ESIL website (www.esil-sedi.eu) for information about travel grants offered to ESIL members and other relevant information about the Research Forum.

CALL FOR PAPERS: The rule of law and international law in historical perspective (IGHIL Event, ESIL Research Forum Göttingen, 4-5 APR 2019); DEADLINE 30 NOV 2018

(image source: ESIL)

The question of how to settle and enforce norms in the international sphere without a central authority has been a key debate in international law for centuries. While the gradual extension of an international order supported by multilateral treaties and courts was seen as a natural and logical development of international society in the decades following the end of the Cold War, the recent challenges to the very idea of a rules-based international order call for fresh perspectives on the idea and development of the rule of law in the international sphere. How did the concept emerge, how did it evolve over time, and how different is its history in the domestic and the international context?

Moreover, the Rule of Law can be envisaged under a double perspective. On the one hand, it expresses a philosophical and theoretical construct, whose intellectual genealogy conforms to that of the development of international legal thinking over time and in several legal cultures. On the other hand, the rule of law can be used instrumentally as an ideological discourse to legitimate far more basic political instincts and interest. Its invocation is not always conformable to actual legal practice. The Interest Group especially welcomes papers addressing the complex articulation of these two strands in historical cases, illustrated through primary source-research.

Possible topics might include:

·         How have international institutions responded to previous challenges of the very idea of the rule of law in international affairs?
·         How has the extent to which a state respects the rule of law in the domestic sphere influenced their behavior within the international community?
·         Has the meaning of the term ‘rule of law’ changed over time, and is it a universal concept? Does it have different connotations in the natural law or the positivist tradition? How have regional attempts to establish the rule of law influenced the international level?
·         When did we begin to have the ambition to regulate and enforce matters at a global level? How has the creation and enforcement of rules changed since the UN system was set up after the Second World War?
·         What was the impact of the rise of arbitration and international courts? Were they the consequence of a growing belief in the rule of law or drivers of this development?
·         How effective has the rule of law been in defining and protecting global commons (e.g. the success or failure of legal efforts to protect the environment)?
·         Has the ‘rule of law’ evolved differently in different policy areas such trade and investment law, communications or the laws of war?

Abstracts must be submitted no later than 30 November 2018 to esilighil@gmail.com on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Interest Group, which shall collectively supervise the blind peer-review process. All those who take part in the ESIL Research Forum, at an Interest Group event and/or in the main Forum, are expected to be ESIL members at the time of their participation. Selected speakers will be expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation. Some ESIL travel grants will be available to offer partial financial support to speakers who have exhausted other potential sources of funding. Please see the ESIL website (www.esil-sedi.eu) for information about travel grants offered to ESIL members and other relevant information about the Research Forum.

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 ABSTRACTS: ESIL RESEARCH FORUM, Granada: Workshop "Neutrality in the History of International Law - Myths and Evolving Realities"; DEADLINE 15 DEC 2016

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

No law is neutral. Law is always a mirror of the value-system and the power structure  underlying  any  given  society  at  any  point  in  time and international law has never been an exception to this rule. A different, and yet related matter, is the extent to which the law applies equally (or not) to all members of any given society, the extent to which these members participate as equals (or not) in the formation of international law and the extent to which the law is effectively (or not) applied in an objective and un-biased manner (what is, commonly known, as 'neutrally') by international bodies and adjudicators charged with applying it to international situations or with settling disputes between any given parties. The aspiration towards 'neutrality'  (as  such  conceived)  of  international  law  in  its  quest  for  an ever-greater  legitimacy,  has, undoubtedly, evolved  throughout  different historical  periods.  

Neutrality  in  the  history  of  international  law can,  on the other hand, also be understood as a legal institution. Neutrality as a legal  institution  was  born  as a  synonym  for  emancipation  from  a  rigorous moral  top-down  juridical-moral  framework  inherited  from  theology. Its theoretical  blossoming  went  in  parallel  with  the  consolidation  of  the principle  of  sovereign  equality  of  nations  and  the  principle  of  non-intervention in domestic affairs during the transition of the classical law of nations to modern international law. Since the establishment of the first international  institutions  with  universal  and  permanent  character, neutrality  as  a  legal  institution  has  continued  to  evolve  against  the background  provided  by  the  ever-shifting  chessboard  of  international relations  and  proliferating  international  institutions. 

Finally,  the relationship of neutrality and the history of international law can be also examined  through  the  lenses  of  the  neutrality  (or  lack  of)  of  history writing itself. If all history is, as B. Croce noted, contemporary history (by which it is generally meant that all history writing is, in one degree or other, done from the perspective of the present and also that all history writing  constitutes  an  intervention  in  the  present)  could  any  historical account  possibly  aspire  to  be  considered  a  'neutral'  history  of international law? And, if so, under what criteria? 

    

The  Interest  Group  of  the  History  of  International  Law  welcomes  abstracts that  engage  critically  with  any  of  these  dimensions  of  neutrality  in  the history  of  international  law  or  a  combination  thereof  in  historical perspective  by  reference  to  relevant  episodes  in  the  history  of international law and/or different historiographical schools.   

  

Each submission should include: 

– An abstract of no more than 400 words, the intended language of presentation, 

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

Applications should be submitted to both Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral (ignacio.delarasillaydelmoral@graduateinstitute.ch);  and Frederik  Dhondt (frederik.dhondt@vub.ac.be)   by  15th December  2016.  All  applicants  will  be notified of the outcome of the selection process by 15th January 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.  

More information on the Research Forum (30-31 March 2017) can be found on the website of the European Society of International Law or on the Granada Law School website.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS: ESIL RESEARCH FORUM, Granada: Workshop "Neutrality in the History of International Law - Myths and Evolving Realities"; DEADLINE 15 DEC 2016

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)

No law is neutral. Law is always a mirror of the value-system and the power structure  underlying  any  given  society  at  any  point  in  time and international law has never been an exception to this rule. A different, and yet related matter, is the extent to which the law applies equally (or not) to all members of any given society, the extent to which these members participate as equals (or not) in the formation of international law and the extent to which the law is effectively (or not) applied in an objective and un-biased manner (what is, commonly known, as 'neutrally') by international bodies and adjudicators charged with applying it to international situations or with settling disputes between any given parties. The aspiration towards 'neutrality'  (as  such  conceived)  of  international  law  in  its  quest  for  an ever-greater  legitimacy,  has, undoubtedly, evolved  throughout  different historical  periods.  

Neutrality  in  the  history  of  international  law can,  on the other hand, also be understood as a legal institution. Neutrality as a legal  institution  was  born  as a  synonym  for  emancipation  from  a  rigorous moral  top-down  juridical-moral  framework  inherited  from  theology. Its theoretical  blossoming  went  in  parallel  with  the  consolidation  of  the principle  of  sovereign  equality  of  nations  and  the  principle  of  non-intervention in domestic affairs during the transition of the classical law of nations to modern international law. Since the establishment of the first international  institutions  with  universal  and  permanent  character, neutrality  as  a  legal  institution  has  continued  to  evolve  against  the background  provided  by  the  ever-shifting  chessboard  of  international relations  and  proliferating  international  institutions. 

Finally,  the relationship of neutrality and the history of international law can be also examined  through  the  lenses  of  the  neutrality  (or  lack  of)  of  history writing itself. If all history is, as B. Croce noted, contemporary history (by which it is generally meant that all history writing is, in one degree or other, done from the perspective of the present and also that all history writing  constitutes  an  intervention  in  the  present)  could  any  historical account  possibly  aspire  to  be  considered  a  'neutral'  history  of international law? And, if so, under what criteria?

   

The  Interest  Group  of  the  History  of  International  Law  welcomes  abstracts that  engage  critically  with  any  of  these  dimensions  of  neutrality  in  the history  of  international  law  or  a  combination  thereof  in  historical perspective  by  reference  to  relevant  episodes  in  the  history  of international law and/or different historiographical schools.   

 

Each submission should include:

– An abstract of no more than 400 words, the intended language of presentation,

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

Applications should be submitted to both Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral (ignacio.delarasillaydelmoral@graduateinstitute.ch);  and Frederik  Dhondt (frederik.dhondt@vub.ac.be)   by  15th December  2016.  All  applicants  will  be notified of the outcome of the selection process by 15th January 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.  

More information on the Research Forum (30-31 March 2017) can be found on the website of the European Society of International Law or on the Granada Law School website.