Gallant: International Criminal Jurisdiction: Whose Law Must We Obey?

Kenneth Gallant (Univ. of Arkansas - Law) has published International Criminal Jurisdiction: Whose Law Must We Obey? (Oxford Univ. Press 2021). Here's the abstract:

International Criminal Jurisdiction is a treatise for anyone conducting research into how domestic and international regimes create and enforce rules for personal and subject matter jurisdiction in transnational or international criminal cases. It is the only such treatise in English on this topic. Attorneys representing corporate executives in white collar criminal cases will be able to use this book to construct challenges to a foreign court's exercise of jurisdiction over those clients. Legal scholars wishing to critique foreign domestic courts for defying suppression treaties will find in this book information on how and why those courts are doing so. Law students will turn to this book for distinctions between international criminal tribunals and domestic courts in the exercise of personal jurisdiction over government officials. The book provides complete details on how domestic legislatures and the U.N. have created statutory and treaty-based rules expanding or even limiting courts' and tribunals' jurisdiction over certain crimes and certain categories of defendants. This research serves the book's function as a thorough guide to jurisdictional questions that arise when criminal acts or criminals cross borders. Questions include whether a defendant possesses standing to challenge an international tribunal's personal jurisdiction over him, what happens when a given domestic regime neglects to criminalize conduct prohibited by a new treaty, and why some domestic courts choose not to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Conference: Extraterritoriality in International Law

On September 15-17, 2021, a conference will be held on "Extraterritoriality in International Law." Program and registration are here.

Ireland-Piper: Extraterritoriality in East Asia: Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction in China, Japan, and South Korea

Danielle Ireland-Piper (Bond Univ. - Law) has published Extraterritoriality in East Asia: Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction in China, Japan, and South Korea (Edward Elgar Publishing 2021). Here's the abstract:

Extraterritoriality in East Asia examines the approaches of China, Japan, and South Korea to exercising legal authority over crimes committed outside their borders. It considers examples of legislation and judicial decision-making and offers a deeper understanding of the topic from the perspective of this legally, politically, and economically significant region. Beginning with a foundational overview of the principles of jurisdiction in international law, as well as identifying current challenges to those principles, subsequent chapters analyse the ways in which extraterritorial jurisdiction operates and is regulated in China, Japan, and South Korea. Danielle Ireland-Piper contextualizes contemporary issues within a historical narrative of each country and concludes by exploring areas of convergence and divergence between them.

Forlati & Franzina: Universal Civil Jurisdiction: Which Way Forward?

Serena Forlati (Univ. of Ferrara - Law) & Pietro Franzina (Catholic Univ. of the Sacred Heart - Law) have published Universal Civil Jurisdiction: Which Way Forward? (Brill | Nijhoff 2021). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract::

Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim’s claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.

Call for Papers: Jurisdiktion - Wer spricht internationales Recht? / Jurisdiction - Who speaks international law?

The Working Group of Young Scholars in Public International Law (Arbeitskreis junger Völkerrechtswissenschaftler*innen - AjV) and the German Society of International Law (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht - DGIR) have issued a call for papers for a conference on "Jurisdiktion - Wer spricht internationales Recht? / Jurisdiction - Who speaks international law?," to take place September 3-4, 2021, at the University of Bonn. The call is here.

Krisch: Jurisdiction Unbound: Global Governance through Extraterritorial Business Regulation

Nico Krisch (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) has posted Jurisdiction Unbound: Global Governance through Extraterritorial Business Regulation. Here's the abstract:

The international law of jurisdiction is faced with far-reaching changes in the context of a globalizing world, but its general orientation, centred on territoriality as the guiding principle, has remained stable for a long time. This paper traces how, in contrast to the prevailing rhetoric of continuity, core categories of jurisdiction have been transformed in recent decades in such a way as to generate an ‘unbound’ jurisdiction, especially when it comes to the regulation of global business activities. The result is a jurisdictional assemblage – an assemblage in which a multiplicity of states have valid jurisdictional claims without clear principles governing the relationship between them, creating a situation in which, in practice, a few powerful countries wield the capacity to set and implement the rules. Jurisdiction is thus misunderstood if framed as an issue of horizontal relations among sovereign equals but should rather be regarded as a structure of global governance through which (some) states govern transboundary markets. Using a governance prism, this paper argues, can help us to gain a clearer view of the normative challenges raised by the exercise of unbound jurisdiction, and it shifts the focus to the accountability mechanisms required to protect not only the rights of targeted companies but also, and especially, the self-government of weaker countries.

Kassoti: The Extraterritorial Applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Some Reflections in the Aftermath of the Front Polisario Saga

Eva Kassoti (T.M.C. Asser Institute - Centre for the Law of European External Relations) has posted The Extraterritorial Applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Some Reflections in the Aftermath of the Front Polisario Saga (European Journal of Legal Studies, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The Front Polisario cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) brought to the forefront the question of whether the EU is bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights when it concludes trade agreements with third states that may affect the enjoyment of fundamentalrights abroad.This isclosely linked to the broader issue of the extraterritorial application of the Charter. In light of these developments, the article purports to revisit this question with a view to ascertaining the current state of the law. It examines and rejects the argument in favour of transposing the extraterritoriality standard developed by the European Court of Human Rights. Against this backdrop, the article continues by focusing on Article 51 of the Charter, which prescribes the Charter's field of application. The main argument advanced is that territorial considerations are immaterial in the context of determining the Charter's applicability; what seems to matter in this context is whether the situation in question is covered by an European Union (EU) competence.

Ryngaert: Selfless Intervention: The Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Common Interest

Cedric Ryngaert (Utrecht Univ. - Law) has published Selfless Intervention: The Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Common Interest (Oxford Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

Should states intervene in situations outside of their own territory in order to safeguard or promote the common good? In this book, Cedric Ryngaert addresses this key question, looking at how the international law of state jurisdiction can be harnessed to serve interests common to the international community. The author inquires how the purpose of the law of jurisdiction may shift from protecting national interests to furthering international concerns, such as those relating to the global environment and human rights. Such a shift is enabled by the instability of the notion of jurisdiction, as well as the interpretative ambiguity of the related notions of sovereignty and territoriality. There is no denying that, in the real world, 'selfless intervention' by states tends to combine with more insular considerations. This book argues, however, that such considerations do not necessarily detract from the legitimacy of unilateralism, but may precisely serve to trigger the exercise of jurisdiction in the common interest.

Raible: Human Rights Unbound: A Theory of Extraterritoriality

Lea Raible (Univ. of Glasgow - Law) has published Human Rights Unbound: A Theory of Extraterritoriality (Oxford Univ. Press 2020). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

This book explores to what extent a state owes human rights obligations to individuals outside of its territory, when the conduct of that state impacts upon the lives of those individuals. It draws upon legal and political philosophy to develop a theory of extraterritoriality based on the nature of human rights, merging accounts of economic, social, and cultural rights with those of civil and political rights

Advertisement

Lea Raible outlines four main arguments aimed at changing the way we think about the extraterritoriality of human rights. First, she argues that questions regarding extraterritoriality are really about justifying the allocation of human rights obligations to specific states. Second, the book shows that human rights as found in international human rights treaties are underpinned by the values of integrity and equality. Third, she shows that these same values justify the allocation of human rights obligations towards specific individuals to public institutions - including states - that hold political power over those individuals. And finally, the book demonstrates that title to territory is best captured by the value of stability, as opposed to integrity and equality. On this basis, Raible concludes that all standards in international human rights treaties that count as human rights require that a threshold of jurisdiction, understood as political power over individuals, is met. The book applies this theory of extraterritoriality to explain the obligations of states in a wide range of cases.

Allen, Costelloe, Fitzmaurice, Gragl, & Guntrip: The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law

Stephen Allen (Queen Mary, Univ. of London - Law), Daniel Costelloe (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP), Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary, Univ. of London - Law), Paul Gragl (Queen Mary, Univ. of London - Law), & Edward Guntrip (Univ. of Sussex - Law) have published The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2019). Contents include:

• Stephen Allen, Daniel Costelloe, Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Paul Gragl, & Edward Guntrip, Introduction: Defining State Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction in International Law
• Kaius Tuori, The Beginnings of State Jurisdiction in International Law until 1648
• Stephane Beaulac, The Lotus Case in Context - Sovereignty, Westphalia, Vattel, Positivism
• Nurfadzilah Yahaya, The European Concept of Legal Jurisdiction in the Colonies
• Stephan Wittich, Immanuel Kant and Jurisdiction in International Law
• Helen Quane, Navigating Diffuse Jurisdictions: An Intra-State Perspective
• Paul Schiff Berman, Jurisdictional Pluralism
• Mariana Valverde, Deepening the Conversation Between Sociolegal Theory and Legal Scholarship About Jurisdiction
• Shaun McVeigh, Critical Approaches to Jurisdiction and International Law
• Cedric Ryngaert, Cosmopolitan Jurisdiction and the National Interest
• Paul Gragl, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in International Law
• Dino Kritsiotis, The Establishment, Change, and Expansion of Jurisdiction through Treaties
• Uta Kohl, Territoriality and Globalization
• Alex Mills, Private law Regulation and Private Interests in Public International Law Jurisdiction
• Kimberly Trapp, Jurisdiction and State Responsibility
• Stephen Allen, Enforcing Criminal Jurisdiction in the Clouds and International Law's Enduring Commitment to Territoriality
• Wouter Vandehole, The 'J' word: Driver or Spoiler of Change in Human Rights Law?
• Edward Guntrip, International Investment Law, Hybrid Authority and Jurisdiction Daniel Costelloe, Concepts of State Jurisdiction in the Contentious and Advisory Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of International Justice
• Georg Kerschischnig & Blanca Montejo The Evolving Nature of the Jurisdiction of the Security Council - a Look at Twenty-First Century Practice
• Kirsten Schmalenbach, International Criminal Jurisdiction Revisited
• James Summers, Jurisdiction and International Territorial Administration

Blattner: Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Challenges of Globalization

Charlotte E. Blattner (Harvard Univ. - Law) has published Protecting Animals Within and Across Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Challenges of Globalization (Oxford Univ. Press 2019). Here's the abstract:

Extraterritorial jurisdiction stands at the juncture of international law and animal law and promises to open a path to understanding and resolving the global problems that challenge the core of animal law. As corporations have relocated and the animal industry (agriculture, medical research, entertainment, etc.) has dispersed its production facilities across the territories of multiple states, regulatory gaps and fears of a race to the bottom have become a pressing issue of global policy. This book provides enough background to allow readers to understand why extraterritorial jurisdiction must respond to these developments, counters objections that readers might raise, and describes how to improve animal law in tandem. The heart of the work is a fully-fledged catalogue of options for extraterritorial jurisdiction, which states can employ to strengthen their animal laws. The book offers top-down perspectives drawn from general international law and trade law, and complements them by a bottom-up up view from the perspective of animal law. The approach connects the law of jurisdiction to substantive law and opens up deeper questions about moral directionality, state and corporate duties owed animals, and the comparative advantages of constitutional, criminal, and administrative animal law. To ensure that extraterritorial animal law does not become complicit in oppressing ethnic and cultural minorities, the book offers critical interdisciplinary perspectives, informed by posthumanist and postcolonialist discourse. Readers will further learn when and how extraterritorial jurisdiction violates international law, and the consequences of exercising it illegally under international law. This work answers questions about how and why extraterritorial jurisdiction can overcome the steepest hurdles for animal law and help move us toward a just global interspecies community.

Seminar: Universal Jurisdiction and the Legacy of the Permanent Court of International Justice

On April 29, 2019, Maynooth University Law Department will hold a seminar on "Universal Jurisdiction and the Legacy of the Permanent Court of International Justice." Details are here.

Workshop: 28th Annual SLS/BIICL Workshop on Theory & International Law

On May 15, 2019, the 28th Annual SLS/BIICL Workshop on Theory & International Law will take place at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. The theme is: "Spaces beyond Sovereignty: International Law Outside of Territorial Jurisdiction." The program is here.

Langer & Eason: The Quiet Expansion of Universal Jurisdiction

Maximo Langer (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Law) & Mackenzie Eason (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Political Science) have posted The Quiet Expansion of Universal Jurisdiction (European Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Based on an original world-wide survey of all universal jurisdiction complaints over core international crimes presented between 1961 and 2017 and against widespread perception by international criminal law experts that universal jurisdiction is in decline, this article shows that universal jurisdiction practice has been quietly expanding as there has been a significant growth in the number of universal jurisdiction trials, in the frequency with which these trials take place year by year, and in the geographical scope of universal jurisdiction litigation. This expansion is likely the result of, among other factors, the adoption of ICC implementing statutes, the creation of specialized international crimes units by states, institutional learning by states and NGOs, technological changes, new migration and refugee waves to universal jurisdiction states, criticisms of international criminal law as neo-colonial, and the search of new venues by human rights NGOs. Universal jurisdiction’s expansion has been quiet because most tried defendants have been low-level, universal jurisdiction states have not made an effort to publicize these trials, and observers have wrongly assumed Belgium and Spain were representative of universal jurisdiction trends. The paper finally assesses positive and negative aspects of the quiet expansion of universal jurisdiction for its defenders and critics.

Parrish: Judicial Jurisdiction: The Transnational Difference

Austen Parrish (Indiana Univ., Bloomington - Law) has posted Judicial Jurisdiction: The Transnational Difference (Virginia Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This Article engages with some of the key debates that have emerged among international law and civil procedure scholars by examining the flurry of recent transnational cases that have become a common feature on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. It makes three principal contributions. First, it explains how the recent decisions involving judicial jurisdiction should be understood within, and partly limited to, their international contexts. Disputes involving nonresident foreign defendants raise different considerations than those involving defendants in the United States, and this Article canvasses those differences. If a concern previously was that courts gave too short shrift to the international aspects of a case, the concern now is that lower courts may make the reverse mistake by overstating the applicability of recent decisions to the domestic, interstate context. Second, it details how international law imposes modest constraints on national court adjudicatory authority, and pushes back on recent attempts to re-imagine public international law. It shows how the Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States — which states that judicial jurisdiction in civil cases is unregulated under international law — advances a position inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority. The Restatement’s attempt to fashion new customary law and reshape the existing legal regime in the judicial jurisdiction arena is problematic, and this Article serves as a counterpoint to that effort. Third, it describes an interplay between unilateral domestic extraterritorial regulation and international lawmaking, and aligns judicial jurisdiction with the closely-related area of legislative jurisdiction. Constraints on broad jurisdictional assertions in transnational disputes may be one of the predicates necessary to spur U.S. multilateral engagement.

Seminar: Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values

The project on "Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values" (UNIJURIS) will hold a seminar on jurisdictional reasonableness on October 30, 2018, at Utrecht University. The program is here.

Jalloh: Universal Criminal Jurisdiction

Charles Chernor Jalloh (Florida International Univ. - Law) has posted Universal Criminal Jurisdiction. Here's the abstract:

The principle of universal jurisdiction is a unique ground of jurisdiction in international law that may permit a State to exercise national jurisdiction over certain crimes in the interest of the international community. This means that a State may exercise jurisdiction regarding a crime committed by a foreign national against another foreign national outside its territory. Such jurisdiction differs markedly from the traditional bases of jurisdiction under international law, which typically require some type of territorial, nationality or other connection between the State exercising the jurisdiction and the conduct at issue. Due to the definitional and other ambiguities surrounding the universality principle, which has in its past application strained and today continues to strain relations among States at the bilateral, regional and international levels, this paper successfully made the case for the inclusion of "Universal Criminal Jurisdiction" as a topic in the long-term program of work of the International Law Commission during its Seventieth Session (2018). It was submitted that taking up a study of this timely topic, which has been debated by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly since 2010, could enhance clarity for States and thereby contribute to the rule of law in international affairs.

Hovell: The Authority of Universal Jurisdiction

Devika Hovell (London School of Economics - Law) has posted The Authority of Universal Jurisdiction. Here's the abstract:

The aim of this article is to flesh out the implications of seeing universal jurisdiction as a claim to authority. While the idea that jurisdiction is an exercise of authority may seem obvious, the article invites attention to the ‘claim’ inherent within it, particularly where the exercise of jurisdiction intrudes upon or displaces competing claims. Legal scholars and practitioners tend to focus on the legal source of authority to exercise universal jurisdiction. The consequence is a tendency to think in binary terms: a court either has jurisdiction, in which case the matter will proceed (without further attention to the question of jurisdiction), or it does not, in which case the whole matter is at an end. Jurisdictional thinking invites attention to the need for those asserting such a claim to take responsibility for these claims to authority, encouraging responsiveness to the normative communities such claims put into relation and the potential need to rethink conventional modes of operation. The article proceeds in two parts. Part I examines the deficiencies in the dominant ‘legal source’ narrative on universal jurisdiction. Part II assesses the value of understanding the legal-political dimension of universal jurisdiction as a claim to authority that must be understood, and justified, with attention to its purpose and the community (or communities) it is intended to serve.

Call for Papers: Private International Law and Intellectual Property: Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments/Arbitral Awards

The University of New South Wales Faculty of Law has issued a call for papers for a workshop on "Private International Law and Intellectual Property: Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments/Arbitral Awards," to take place August 18, 2018. The call is here.

Conference: Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values

On June 18, 2018, the "Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values" (UNIJURIS) research project at Utrecht University will hold a conference on "Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values" to present its results. The program is here.