(image source: Wikimedia Commons)
No law is
neutral. Law is always a mirror of the
value-system and the power structure underlying
any given society
at any point
in time and international law has
never been an exception to this rule. A different, and yet related matter, is
the extent to which the law applies equally (or not) to all members of any
given society, the extent to which these members participate as equals (or not)
in the formation of international law and the extent to which the law is
effectively (or not) applied in an objective and un-biased manner (what is,
commonly known, as 'neutrally') by international bodies and adjudicators charged
with applying it to international situations or with settling disputes between
any given parties. The aspiration towards 'neutrality' (as
such conceived) of
international law in
its quest for an
ever-greater legitimacy, has, undoubtedly, evolved throughout
different historical
periods.
Neutrality in
the history of
international law can, on the other hand, also be understood as a legal institution. Neutrality as a legal institution
was born as a
synonym for emancipation
from a rigorous moral top-down
juridical-moral framework inherited
from theology. Its theoretical blossoming
went in parallel
with the consolidation
of the principle of
sovereign equality of
nations and the
principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs during
the transition of the classical law of nations to modern international law.
Since the establishment of the first international institutions
with universal and
permanent character, neutrality as
a legal institution
has continued to
evolve against the background provided
by the ever-shifting
chessboard of international relations and
proliferating international institutions.
Finally, the relationship
of neutrality and the history of international law can be also examined through
the lenses of the neutrality
(or lack of)
of history writing itself. If all
history is, as B. Croce noted, contemporary history (by which it is generally
meant that all history writing is, in one degree or other, done from the
perspective of the present and also that all history writing constitutes
an intervention in the present)
could any historical account possibly
aspire to be
considered a 'neutral'
history of international law?
And, if so, under what criteria?
The Interest
Group of the
History of International
Law welcomes abstracts that engage
critically with
any of these
dimensions of neutrality
in the history of
international law or
a combination thereof
in historical perspective by
reference to relevant
episodes in the
history of international law
and/or different historiographical schools.
Each
submission should include:
– An
abstract of no more than 400 words,
the intended language of presentation,
– A short curriculum vitae containing the author’s name,
institutional affiliation, contact
information and e-mail address.
Applications
should be submitted to both Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral (ignacio.delarasillaydelmoral@graduateinstitute.ch); and Frederik
Dhondt (frederik.dhondt@vub.ac.be)
by 15th December
2016. All applicants
will be notified of the outcome
of the selection process by 15th January
2017.
Selection
will be based on scholarly merit and with regard to producing an engaging workshop,
without prejudice to
gender, seniority, language
or geographical location. Please
note that the
ESIL Interest Group
on the History of
International Law is
unable to provide
funds to cover
the conference registration fee or related transport and accommodation
costs.
More information on the Research Forum (30-31 March 2017) can be found on the website of the European Society of International Law.
More information on the Research Forum (30-31 March 2017) can be found on the website of the European Society of International Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.