mercoledì 14 giugno 2017

Call for Papers Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law XXth International Congress 2018 International Academy of Comparative Law Fukuoka, Japan July 25, 2018

Call for Papers
Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law
XXth International Congress 2018
International Academy of Comparative Law
Fukuoka, Japan
July 25, 2018
We invite younger scholars to participate in the first-ever Younger Scholars Forum in
Comparative Law, to be held in Fukuoka, Japan on Wednesday, July 25, 2018, from 9:00am to
12:00pm as part of the larger quadrennial Congress of Comparative Law organized by the
International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL).
Abstracts are invited for eight (8) Workshops and one (1) TED-style Speakers’ Corner. All
nine sessions will be held concurrently from 9:00am to 12:00pm on the day of the Forum. More
details follow below on the subject-matter of each Workshop and on the format of the Speakers’
Abstracts may be submitted in either English or French, the two official languages of the
The Congress
The IACL hosts a general Congress of Comparative Law every four years. It is the premiere
gathering for scholars of comparative law. It is a “general” Congress because scholars of all fields
attend and participate in Workshops on specific subjects that span the broad range of private and
public law. To learn more about the IACL, here is its website: And here
is a description of the IACL itself:
The Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law
For the first time in its history (the first general Congress was held at The Hague in 1932), the
IACL will host a program for younger scholars, defined as those scholars with no more than
ten years of tenure-track faculty experience. This includes graduate students as well as postdoctoral
fellows, lecturers and visiting affiliates who have yet to secure a continuing faculty
The Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law is chaired and convened by Richard Albert
(Canada/USA) along with vice-chairs Luisa Fernanda García López (Colombia) and Maxime StHilaire
(Canada). The chair is supported by a Program Committee and a Senior Advisory
Committee. Members of both committees are identified further down below. The Program
Committee is composed of three subcommittees: the Planning & Priorities subcommittee, cochaired
by Cora Chan (China) and Yaniv Roznai (Israel); the Information & Recruitment
subcommittee, co-chaired by Cristina Fasone (Italy) and Daniel Wunder Hachem (Brazil); and the
Communications & Technology subcommittee, chaired by John Haskell (United Kingdom). 
Each Workshop will be conducted as a discussion group structured around accepted papers. Each
Workshop will feature two Moderators and a Distinguished Provocateur-Discussant. The
moderators will select up to 25 participants for a wide-ranging discussion that will run for the
duration of the three-hour session. The Distinguished Provocateur-Discussant will comment on
remarks made by participants, draw connections among the points made by the participants, seed
the discussion with new points and questions, as well as challenge, reinforce and/or complicate the
comments made by the participants. Discussions will be conducted in both English and French.
Each of the Workshops follows below with an abstract identifying the Moderators and
Distinguished Provocateur-Discussants.
Speakers’ Corner
The Speakers’ Corner will feature 15 to 18 TED-style 9-minute oral presentations on a scholarly
subject related to a topic of the speaker’s choice in comparative law. All presentations will be
recorded live in front of an audience at the Forum and uploaded on YouTube for larger
dissemination with the global community of comparative law.
How to Participate
By September 15, 2017, younger scholars should email an abstract between 150 and 500 words
to the Corresponding Moderator of the Workshop in which they would like to participate. All
Corresponding Moderators are identified below in connection with each Workshop. For those
interested in participating in the Speakers’ Corner, younger scholars should email an abstract
between 150 and 500 words to the Director of the Speakers’ Corner, also identified further below.
Applicants will be notified by October 15, 2017.
The IACL does not cover expenses for any participant, including Moderators and Distinguished
Provocateur-Discussants. But we believe that applicants’ home institutions will support
participation in this event given the prestige and history of the IACL along with the special
opportunity to exchange ideas and interact with younger scholars, Moderators and Distinguished
Provocateur-Discussants from around the world.
All successful participants will have to register with the IACL. No other affiliation is required to
participate in this program.
For questions about the Workshops, please contact Program Committee vice-chairs Luisa
Fernanda García López (Colombia) at or Maxime St-Hilaire
(Canada) at
For questions about the Speakers’ Corner, please contact the Director John Haskell (United
Kingdom) at 
For questions about the IACL, please contact Program Committee Chair Richard Albert at 

mercoledì 29 marzo 2017

Northern Ireland and ‘Brexit’: The European Economic Area Option

Brian Doherty

John Temple Lang
University of Dublin - Trinity College; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Christopher McCrudden
Queen's University Belfast - School of Law; University of Michigan Law School

Lee McGowan
Queen's University Belfast - Department of Politics and International Studies

David Phinnemore
Queen's University Belfast

Dagmar Schiek
Queen's University Belfast - School of Law, Centre of European and Transnational Legal Studies

Date Written: March 15, 2017

UK withdrawal from the EU poses many challenges for Northern Ireland. The preferred option of Northern Ireland's First Minister and deputy First Minister is, in many respects, for the status quo to be maintained. An approach that could mitigate some of the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and maintain much of the economic status quo is for Northern Ireland to become a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). This paper sets out what the EEA offers and highlights how EEA membership might be achieved as well as the issues it raises. In the EEA, Northern Ireland would retain full access to the Single Market. It would continue to be part of a European market with the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. EEA membership would also permit some citizenship rights to be maintained. It would not be a panacea, however. It would also bring with it political and legal challenges. But it is a known arrangement and would therefore ensure a significant degree of certainty.

Keywords: Brexit, Northern Ireland, European Economic Area, EEA

Full text available at:

domenica 26 marzo 2017

Shany: All Roads Lead to Strasbourg?: Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee

All Roads Lead to Strasbourg?: Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee

Yuval Shany
Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Law and Institute of Criminology; Israel Democracy Institute

January 1, 2017

The present article seeks to explore the possibility that a gap exists between the perceived rejection of the margin of appreciation (MoA) doctrine by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), and its actual practice of employing substitute, MoA-like approaches. The existence of such a gap might be explained by the proposition that some aspects of the MoA doctrine are an indispensable element of international adjudication involving state conduct. It may also suggest that there are policy considerations which lead some international human rights bodies not to embrace explicitly the MoA doctrine or to downplay in their jurisprudence the prominence of similar deference-granting doctrines. 

Part One of the article surveys the application of the MoA doctrine in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), identifying three analytically separate prongs – application of law to facts, balancing of norms in the course of law-application and balancing of norms in the course of law interpretation. Part Two then moves to discuss analogous legal moves taken by the HRC, while noting the remaining differences between the approaches of the two bodies. Part Three concludes.

Keywords: International human rights law, margin of appreciation, European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Committee, judicial Deference, Treaty, Interpretation, International Courts

Territorial Disputes in the Context of Secessionist Conflicts M. Kohen & M. Hebie (eds), Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017

Territorial Disputes in the Context of Secessionist Conflicts
M. Kohen & M. Hebie (eds), Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017

Theodore Christakis
University Grenoble-Alpes, CESICE, France; Institut Universitaire de France

Aristoteles Constantinides
University of Cyprus

Date Written: June 5, 2016

In this chapter, we explore the territorial dimension of non-decolonization secessionist conflicts in international law. Our investigation is divided in three parts. The first part focuses on secessions resulting from violations of jus cogens norms. We conclude that contemporary international law prohibits such secessions and prescribes non-recognition as the legal consequence. In the second part, we explore the legal framework under general international law relating to unilateral secessions that do not involve violations of jus cogens. We conclude that even though international law neither authorizes nor outright prohibits unilateral secession it sets many obstacles and presumptions against its ultimate success, but ultimately leaves some space for the principle of effectiveness in exceptional cases. Our third part investigates consensual agreements in the context of secessionist conflicts, which have either led to the creation of new states or accommodated the self-determination aspirations of separatist entities within parent states based on territorial self-governance arrangements. This part also highlights the interplay between consent, effectivités and uti possidetis in state practice and also gives a close look to three arbitrations that dealt with territorial disputes in various non/post-colonial contexts.

Keywords: secession, self-determination, territorial disputes, effectiveness, jus cogens, recognition, non-recognition, uti possidetis, consent, territorial self-government, autonomy

venerdì 10 febbraio 2017

Imposed Constitutions with Consent?

Richard Albert 
Boston College - Law School; Yale University - Law School; Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Derecho; University of Toronto - Faculty of Law; Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliyah - Radzyner School of Law

February 3, 2017

Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 434 

Can a constitution be imposed with the consent of the peoples on which it is imposed? The conventional understanding of an imposed constitution — a constitution forced upon a people after war or conquest — rejects this possibility because the very nature of an imposed constitution denies that a community of peoples could divest itself of the power of self-determination associated with democratic constitution-making and -changing. Yet beyond contexts of war and conquest, we may consider constitutions to have been imposed also if they reflect some measure of heteronomy. Heteronomous constitutions are created, governed or adapted directly or indirectly by an external actor. This understanding of an imposed constitution accommodates both the conventional view of a constitution written or administered coercively by a victorious power for a vanquished state after war or conquest as well as those domestic constitutions born not of defeat but controlled in some way by an external actor exercising constitution-level decisionmaking authority. In this paper, I identify three categories of heteronomous constitutions imposed with consent — constitutions that are amended, adjudicated and interpreted by others — none quite the paradigmatic model of an indigenous constitution born of and governed by local actors but each one more a function of self-determined choice than a constitution imposed in war or conquest. Recognizing that a constitution can indeed be imposed with consent complicates our understanding of imposed constitutions and forces us to confront the reality that extraterritorial actors can sometimes be invited to occupy a central place in domestic constitutional law.

Keywords: Imposed Constitutions, Heteronomy, Japanese Constitution, Canadian Constitution, Commonwealth Caribbean, South African Constitution, Grenadian Constitution, Caribbean Court of Justice, Constitutional Amendment, Constitution-Making, Patriation, Colonialism, Global Constitutionalism