Schill & Djanic: International Investment Law and Community Interests

Stephan W. Schill (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) & Vladislav Djanic (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) have posted International Investment Law and Community Interests. Here's the abstract:

In contemporary discourse, international investment law (IIL) and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are often perceived as threats to community interests in one-sidedly protecting foreign investors and undermining public policies that are to the benefit of the local population and the international community. This is nowhere more manifest than in the fierce debates about the inclusion of an investment chapter in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The present chapter forwards a different perspective. First, it argues that investment law properly construed can be conceptualized as protecting community interests, because it is part of the legal infrastructure that is necessary for the functioning of the global economy under a rule of law framework. Aimed at supporting economic growth, this helps further economic and non-economic community interests, including sustainable development. Second, the chapter argues that IIL and ISDS do not turn a blind eye to the conflicts that can arise between economic and non-economic community interests, such as environmental protection, labour standards, public health or human rights. Instead, investment law and dispute settlement have numerous mechanisms at their disposal for alleviating tensions with non-economic community interests.

Contesse: Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System

Jorge Contesse (Rutgers Univ., Newark - Law) has posted Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System (Law & Contemporary Problems, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This Article discusses the inter-American human rights system’s adjudication model in light of some of the conjectures on subsidiarity as a principle for international governance — that is, the degree of deference it grants to the assessment of a situation by the member state concerned. I inquire about the system’s role as arbitrator of human rights cases within its jurisdiction, examining the dynamics of subsidiarity within the system’s changing context. I find that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights tends to employ a maximalist model of adjudication. Such a model leaves little room for states to reach their own decisions and can be explained as largely resting upon the political context where the Court came to exist, almost four decades ago. I argue that there is a challenge ahead for the Court, namely, to reconcile both claims: on the one hand, states’ demands for higher deference, and on the other hand, the importance of an independent and legitimate regional human rights tribunal.

Hilpold: The Fight Against Terrorism and SC Resolution 2249 (2015)

Peter Hilpold (Univ. of Innsbruck - Law) has posted The Fight Against Terrorism and SC Resolution 2249 (2015): Towards a More Hobbesian or a More Kantian International Society? (Indian Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Security Council Resolution 2249 of 20 November 2015 was intended to open a new chapter in the fight against terrorism in general and against ISIS in particular. However, in academia this Resolution was received with criticism. After an analysis of SC Resolution 2249, it will be argued that the criteria developed for assessing jus ad bellum in inter-state relations are of no easy application in the relationship between states and non-state actors and in particular in regard to terrorists. If the prohibition of the use of force applies at all, this has to happen in a largely modified way. Fears that a lowered threshold for the use of force against terrorists will introduce a new “Hobbesian” element in international law do not appear to be justified. On the contrary, an international community showing more solidarity in the fight against terrorism will reinforce their Kantian traits. Resolution 2249 can offer an important contribution for such a development to take place.