The ICC and its Deteriorating Relationship with Africa in Light of the Kenya Cases: What Should the EU Position be? IES Policy Brief Issue 2013/09 • November 2013

Summary. The African Union (AU), a union consisting of 54 African States, held an Extraordinary Summit on 11-12 October 2013, to discuss its relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court). The meeting took place just weeks before the trial of Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta is scheduled to begin, and was clearly intended to voice discontent and put on hold the ongoing ICC proceedings against Kenyatta as well as his deputy, Vice-President William Ruto. Before the Summit, there were even widespread rumors that the Assembly of the AU would call for a mass withdrawal of African States Parties from the ICC Statute. Eventually, the Assembly did not go that far and took two important, but less controversial decisions. It called for the granting of immunities to Heads of States from prosecutions by international criminal tribunals and requested a deferral of the ICC cases against Kenyatta and Ruto through a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council (UNSC). After providing a background to the Kenya cases, this policy brief aims to evaluate what the position of the EU and its Member States as outspoken supporters of the ICC and the fight against impunity should be, especially given the fact that France and the UK, as permanent UNSC members, could block a UNSC deferral at any time.

GATS and the Social Regulation of Services. IES WORKING PAPER 3/2010

Many service transactions are highly complex, and their quality is difficult to ascertain for consumers. In order to have properly functioning service markets, the services thus often require regulation. However, with the advent of the WTO, international trade in services has become increasingly rule-bound. GATS has considerable, intricate effects on social regulation due to the characteristics of services. The allocation of regulatory jurisdiction between home and host country, for example, is rendered difficult by the process-based nature of a lot of services. The WTO US – Gambling dispute settlement report is the first to address GATS disciplines on social regulation in a detailed manner. This working paper submits that the US - Gambling report has increased interference with domestic social regulation and created regulatory uncertainty for WTO members. However, it is also argued that the real impact of the GATS on social regulation can only be understood by looking beyond the text of the GATS. GATS disciplines may become amplified through their interaction with domestic and other international law. The GATS also contains some “political” counterbalancing mechanisms that allow members to renegotiate their commitments. It is argued that these political mechanisms strengthen subsidiarity in the GATS, and make WTO dispute settlement bodies accountable to WTO members.

Crimea one year after Russian annexation. EPC Policy Brief, 24 March 2015

On 18 March 2014, the Lower House of the Russian Parliament approved a Treaty to annex the Ukrainian Black Sea Peninsula of Crimea by 443 to 1 votes. This act violated Ukraine's sovereignty, representing a fundamental breach of international law; the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, whereby the nuclear arsenal stationed on Ukraine's territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union was relinquished in exchange for security assurances of its sovereign territorial integrity. Russia, the US, France and the UK all signed. The annexation also violated a number of bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Russia. Russia's actions were immediately condemned by the international community. A 13 March European Parliament Resolution "firmly condemns Russia's act of aggression in invading Crimea, which is an inseparable part of Ukraine and recognised as such by the Russian Federation".

An Exercise in Legal Honesty: Re-writing the Court of Justice and the Bundesverfassungsgericht. IHS Political Science Series No. 136, February 2014

At a time of crisis – a true state of emergency – both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the German Federal Constitutional Court have failed the rule of law in Europe. Worse still, in their evaluation of the ersatz crisis law, which has been developed in response to financial and sovereign debt crises, both courts have undermined constitutionality throughout Europe. Each jurisdiction has been implicated within the techocratisation of democratic process. Each Court has contributed to an incremental process of the undermining of the political subjectivity of European Citizens. The results are depressing for lawyers who are still attached to notions of constitutionality. Yet, we must also ask whether the Courts could have acted otherwise. Given the original flaws in the construction of Economic and Monetary Union, as well as the politically pre-emptive constraints imposed by global financial markets, each Court might thus be argued to have been forced to suspend immediate legality in a longer term effort to secure the character of the legal jurisdiction as a whole. Crisis can and does defeat the law. Nevertheless, what continues to disturb is the failure of law in Europe to open up any perspective for a return to normal constitutionality post crisis, as well as its apparent inability to give proper and honest consideration to the hardship now being experienced by millions of Europeans within crisis. This contribution accordingly seeks to reimagine each Judgment in a language of legal honesty. Above all, this contribution seeks to suggest a new form of post-national constitutional language; a language which takes as its primary function, proper protection of democratic process against the ever encroaching powers of a post-national executive power. This contribution forms a part of an on-going effort to identify a new basis for the legitimacy of European Law, conducted jointly and severally with Christian Joerges, University of Bremen and Hertie School of Government, Berlin. Differences do remain in our theoretical positions; hence this individual essay. Nevertheless, the congruence between pluralist and conflict of law approaches to the topic are also readily apparent. See, for example, Everson & Joerges (2013).

Europe’s Double Refugee Crisis. CEPS Commentary, 8 September 2015

Against the background of the rapidly growing number of asylum-seekers, Daniel Gros argues in this CEPS Commentary that the EU needs to take action on two fronts. First, member countries must urgently boost their capacity to deal with asylum applications, so that they can quickly identify those who truly deserve protection. Second, the EU needs to improve burden-sharing in providing shelter for those who gain asylum. In his view, international law – and basic morality – demands nothing less.

Reasons withheld and insufficient reasoning as due process violations: two cases before the ECHR

Two very different cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights illustrate how the non-availability of sufficient reasons, for pre-trial judicial decisions in one case, and for a decision in a civil and administrative matter in the other, can lead to due process violations in terms of Articles 5 or 6 of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

A challenge for liberal democracy: How to understand the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Bertelsmann Policy Brief, 16.10.2014

The Russian intervention in Ukraine has provoked a deep crisis which will likely last for years, with profound consequences not only for Ukraine, Russia and Eastern Europe, but also for the internal situation in the European Union. The current Russian aggression is frequently seen as a profound violation of international law, breaking the rules that are fundamental for relations in Europe. It is perceived as perhaps a step towards rebuilding imperial Russia or, at the very least, an attempt to keep Ukraine within Russia’s sphere of influence. However, one very important aspect is virtually neglected, namely, that Russia’s Ukraine venture may have a significant impact on the future of liberal democracy in Europe and beyond.

Britain and Europe: A new settlement? EPC Challenge Europe 23, May 2016

Britain's European problem, Stephen Wall; Britain's contribution to the EU: an insider's view, David Hannay; 'Foreign judges' and the law of the European Union, David Edward; The United Kingdom and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Peter Goldsmith; European foreign policy: five and a half stories, Robert Cooper; External relations and the transformative power of enlargement, Heather Grabbe; Recalibrating British European policy in foreign affairs, Fraser Cameron; The European Union and the wider Europe, Graham Avery; From Common Market to Single Market: an unremarked success, Malcolm Harbour; Lost in translation: Britain, Germany and the euro, Quentin Peel; After Cameron's EU deal, Kirsty Hughes; Re-imagining the European Union, Caroline Lucas; Britain and European federalism, Brendan Donnelly; Europe's British problem, Andrew Duff.

The Principle of Common Concern and Climate Change

Effective policies combating global warming and incentivising reduction of greenhouse gases face fundamental collective action problems. States defending short term interests avoid international commitments and seek to benefit from measures combating global warming taken elsewhere. The paper explores the potential of Common Concern as an emerging principle of international law, in particular international environmental law, in addressing collective action problems and the global commons. It expounds the contours of the principle, its relationship to common heritage of mankind, to shared and differentiated responsibility and to public goods. It explores its potential to provide the foundations not only for international cooperation, but also to justify, and delimitate at the same time, unilateral action at home and deploying extraterritorial effects in addressing the challenges of global warming and climate change mitigation. As unilateral measures mainly translate into measures of trade policy, the principle of Common Concern is inherently linked and limited by existing legal disciplines in particular of the law of the World Trade Organization.

Negotiating an Energy Deal under TTIP: Drivers and Impediments to U.S. Shale Exports to Europe

The problem of global security of energy supply is growing in importance. TTIP negotiations represent an opportunity to improve energy security in Europe and negotiate a legal framework for bilateral trade in energy, which could serve as a model for future negotiations at a multilateral level. This paper explores some of the thorniest legal, geopolitical, and economic issues that need to be taken up by TTIP negotiators for the promotion of a secure and sustainable trade in energy between the United States and European Union. It gives an account of the most recent developments in the TTIP negotiations on energy and examines the link between a possible legal framework for energy trade under TTIP and other energy-related regional and international fora. The paper critically assesses the negotiating positions of the European Union and the United States in light of their reciprocal energy profiles and needs. It offers an overview of the critical items most likely to be on top of the TTIP agenda on energy based on a comparative analysis of energy provisions in E.U. and U.S. legislation and in light of the both parties’ interests. Finally, it discusses the main driving forces and inhibiting factors capable of facilitating or rather impeding a successful conclusion of an energy trade deal between the United States and the European Union.

Lecciones de derecho internacional privado.

Mode of access: Internet.

Programa del curso de Derecho internacional privado.

Mode of access: Internet.

Los conceptos modernos del derecho internacional.

Mode of access: Internet.

Estudios de derecho público microform /

Filmed from the original held by: Harvard Law School Library.

Nociones de derecho internacional moderno,

Mode of access: Internet.