Victims of War must be loyal to deserve protection: International law and national legislation on enemy aliens 1907-1918

In international law the internment of civilians has only been regulated in writing in the context of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. Nevertheless this did not mean that civilians were not protected by at least some rules of customary international law before that date and especially in World War I. Furthermore specialists of international law expected states – at least those considered to be part of the community of civilized nations – to continue to treat all men equal before the law even in wartime. As research already conducted (Bird, Panayi, Fischer) has shown, this was not the case during World War I. Based on these findings the presentation proposed here wants to look into the development of international law and into some national preparations for treating so called “enemy aliens” in the period before 1914 (Austria-Hungary, Australia, United Kingdom), in order to see to what extent principles of international law protecting civilians from the consequences of war can be detected in the pre-war preparations. As far as can be judged so far the issue of loyalty was central in this context. Looking at the war itself, the presentation proposed here will try to look at how far the principles of international law alluded to above continued to influence the policies on “enemy aliens” in the countries mentioned and to see, how the International Committee of the Red Cross tried to use them to legitimize and expand its protective policies in regard to civilians interned in belligerent as well as neutral countries throughout the war.

The International Law of Culture : Prospects and Challenges

This is a conference review of an event on the international law of culture, which took place in late May 2012 at the University of Göttingen, Germany. The review provides context to it considering the complex landscape of international initiatives of hard and soft law nature, which address culture and their impact on the environment, where cultural rights are to be exercised.

Cultural Diversity as a Concept of Global Law : Origins, Evolution and Prospects

“Cultural diversity” has become one of the latest buzzwords on the international policymaking scene. It is employed in various contexts – sometimes as a term close to “biological diversity”, at other times as correlated to the “exception culturelle” and most often, as a generic concept that is mobilised to counter the perceived negative effects of economic globalisation. While no one has yet provided a precise definition of what cultural diversity is, what we can observe is the emergence of the notion of cultural diversity as incorporating a distinct set of policy objectives and choices at the global level. These decisions are not confined, as one might have expected, to cultural policymaking, but rather spill over to multiple governance domains because of the complex linkages inherent to the simultaneous pursuit of economic and other societal goals that cultural diversity encompasses and has effects on. Accounting for these intricate interdependencies, the present article clarifies the origins of the concept of cultural diversity as understood in global law and traces its evolution over time. Observing the dynamics of the concept and the surrounding political and legal developments, the article explores its justification and overall impact on the global legal regime, as well as its discrete effects on different domains of policymaking, such as media, intellectual property and culture. While the analysis is legal in essence, the article is meant to speak also to a broader transdisciplinary public. The article is part of the speacial issue on ethnic diversity and cultural pluralism, which is available under the creative commons licence: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity/special_issues/ethnic-diversity/.

Law and science: risk assessment and risk management in the WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures

Assessing and managing risks relating to the consumption of food stuffs for humans and to the environment has been one of the most complex legal issues in WTO law, ever since the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures was adopted at the end of the Uruguay Round and entered into force in 1995. The problem was expounded in a number of cases. Panels and the Appellate Body adopted different philosophies in interpreting the agreement and the basic concept of risk assessment as defined in Annex A para. 4 of the Agreement. Risk assessment entails fundamental question on law and science. Different interpretations reflect different underlying perceptions of science and its relationship to the law. The present thesis supported by the Swiss National Research Foundation undertakes an in-depth analysis of these underlying perceptions. The author expounds the essence and differences of positivism and relativism in philosophy and natural sciences. He clarifies the relationship of fundamental concepts such as risk, hazards and probability. This investigation is a remarkable effort on the part of lawyer keen to learn more about the fundamentals based upon which the law – often unconsciously – is operated by the legal profession and the trade community. Based upon these insights, he turns to a critical assessment of jurisprudence both of panels and the Appellate Body. Extensively referring and discussing the literature, he deconstructs findings and decisions in light of implied and assumed underlying philosophies and perceptions as to the relationship of law and science, in particular in the field of food standards. Finding that both positivism and relativism does not provide adequate answers, the author turns critical rationalism and applies the methodologies of falsification developed by Karl R. Popper. Critical rationalism allows combining discourse in science and law and helps preparing the ground for a new approach to risk assessment and risk management. Linking the problem to the doctrine of multilevel governance the author develops a theory allocating risk assessment to international for a while leaving the matter of risk management to national and democratically accountable government. While the author throughout the thesis questions the possibility of separating risk assessment and risk management, the thesis offers new avenues which may assist in structuring a complex and difficult problem