(image source: secretldn)
The ESCLH Blog Team thanks all its visitors for their uninterrupted stream of visits. We will though take a break from posting until 2 January 2019.
Enjoy the holidays and visit us again for updates in the New Year !
Last week in the Peace Palace, Prof. Martti Koskenniemi spoke about international law and the rise of the far right for the Hague-based T.M.C. Asser Instituut. “Economic reforms are of no concern to these protesters. And the more you try to reform, the more you will appear like a hopeless idiot.” An interview with Prof. Martti Koskenniemi on the backlash against globalism, fake expertise and the smoking gun in his historical work by Dimitri van den Meerssche & Pascal Messer. At the Fourth Asser Annual Lecture you spoke about the current ‘backlash’ against international law and its institutions and the rise of the extreme right. You seem to have your own analysis on the nature of this backlash and where it stems from. Yes. I am critical of this liberal understanding which tries to establish a sympathetic relationship with people who are assumed to have been, as the cliché goes, ‘left behind’, those lost somewhere in an ‘unavoidable process of globalisation’. This sociological and economic account looks at the way in which the economic benefits from globalisation have not reached a group of people. These people would be reacting to their relative deprivation, by being critical of elites and of life in the city. And by Brexit and by voting for Trump, and by kicking in the ass those people who they think are responsible for their deprivation and marginalisation.Prof. Koskenniemi's lecture was announced earlier on this blog.
La desamortización de bienes eclesiásticos en México. Hipótesis de estudio en torno a la defensa de la Iglesia y la justificación del estado para aplicar la ley. (ALEJANDRA JUKSDIVIA VÁZQUEZ MENDOZA)Temáticas eclesiales y religiosas en las actas de cabildos seculares de la frontera oriental del virreinato del río de la plata. (ALFREDO DE J. FLORES)La libertad como requisito canónico para la profesión religiosa en el tercer concilio provincial mexicano de 1585. (SANDRA CHICO)Reflexiones sobre la edición de la legislación eclesiástica de la arquidiócesis de santafé en el nuevo reino de granada. (JUAN FERNANDO COBO BETANCOURT)Aproximación a las facultades decenales otorgadas a los obispos indianos. (FERNANDO GONZÁLEZ)Significado y uso del asilo en sagrado en el derecho canónico indiano. (SANDRO OLAZA PALLERO)Influencia de canonistas italianos en el derecho público eclesiástico de Dalmacio Vélez Sarsfield. (ANTONIO DOUGNAC RODRÍGUEZ)More information at https://canonico-indiano.blogspot.com/.
How should international treaties be interpreted over time? This book offers fresh insights on this age-old question. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) sets out the rules for interpretation, stipulating that treaties should be interpreted inter alia according to the 'ordinary meaning' of the text. Evolutive interpretation has been considered since the times of Gentili and Grotius, but this is the first book to systematically address what evolutive interpretation looks like in reality. It sets out to address how and under what circumstances it can be said that the interpretation of a treaty evolves, and under what circumstances it remains static. With the VCLT as its point of departure, this study develops a functional reconstruction of the rules of treaty interpretation, and explores and analyses how the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have approached the issue.On the author:
Christian Djeffal received his Ph.D. from Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, where he worked as a research assistant. He is currently a law clerk at the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt. He has been a visiting scholar at the Amsterdam Center for International Law at the University of Amsterdam, the Lauterpacht Centre at the University of Cambridge, and the Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative Public and International Law.
Americans have long supposed that the adversarial trial, dominated by lawyers, was always at the heart of our legal system. Amalia Kessler’s deeply thoughtful Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877 (Yale University Press, 2017) persuasively challenges this supposition. Kessler shows how mid-nineteenth century debates over market regulation, the role of the legal profession, religion, and Reconstruction helped elevate adversarialism over more judge-centered quasi-inquisitorial alternatives. Beautifully written and deeply original in conceptualization, this wonderful monograph reframes and expands the history of legal procedure by situating it in a wide array of contexts that previous accounts had not connected together.More information with the publisher.
Fahad A. Bishara’s Sea of Debt is an ambitious and imaginatively conceived study that shows how law was a crucial force in tying together actors across the western Indian Ocean. Bishara follows Islamic law and its paperwork as they circulated between the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. We learn how merchants from South Asia engaged with Islamic legal norms and institutions, and how all of this shifted as the British imperial presence intensified from the 1860s. Sea of Debt’s use of Arabic sources is particularly impressive, and sets the book apart from much work on the British imperial world. Illuminating the intersection of law and capitalism from Muscat to Mombasa (with a special focus on Zanzibar), Sea of Debt reveals how local actors—including qāḍis, jurists, traders, moneylenders, clerks, lawyers, and judges—shaped transoceanic commercial practices across the trade in dates, cloves, ivory and slaves through legal norms and networks.A Sea of Debt can be found on the CUP website.
A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe is a synthetic work, authored by an international team of researchers, covering twenty national cultures and 250 years. It goes beyond the conventional nation-centered narratives and presents a novel vision especially sensitive to the cross-cultural entanglement of political ideas and discourses. Its principal aim is to make these cultures available for the global 'market of ideas' and revisit some of the basic assumptions about the history of modern political thought, and modernity as such.On the contributors:
The present volume is a sequel to Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century'. It begins with the end of the Great War, depicting the colorful intellectual landscape of the interwar period and the increasing political and ideological radicalization culminating in the Second World War. Taking the war experience both as a breaking point but in many ways also a transmitter of previous intellectual traditions, it maps the intellectual paradigms and debates of the immediate postwar years, marked by a negotiation between the democratic and communist agendas, as well as the subsequent processes of political and cultural Stalinization. Subsequently, the post-Stalinist period is analyzed with a special focus on the various attempts of de-Stalinization and the rise of revisionist Marxism and other critical projects culminating in the carnivalesque but also extremely dramatic year of 1968. This volume is followed by Volume II: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Short Twentieth Century' and Beyond, Part II: 1968-2018.
Balázs Trencsényi, Professor in the Department of History, Central European University Budapest, Michal Kopeček, Head of the Ideas and Concepts Department, Institute of Contemporary History, Prague, Luka Lisjak Gabrijelčič, PhD candidate in the Program in Comparative History of Central, Southeastern, and Eastern Europe, Central European University, Budapest, Maria Falina, Lecturer in European History, Dublin City University, Mónika Baár, Professor of Central European Studies, University of Leiden, and Maciej Janowski, Head of Section at the Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw Balázs Trencsényi is Professor in the Department of History, Central European University Budapest. His research focuses on the comparative history of political thought in East Central Europe and the history of historiography. He is Co-Director of Pasts, Inc., Center for Historical Studies at CEU and Editor of the periodical East Central Europe (Brill). His publications include A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe: Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century' (with Maciej Janowski, Monika Baar, Maria Falina, and Michal Kopeček, OUP, 2016), The Politics of 'National Character': A Study in Interwar East European Thought (Routledge, 2012), Whose Love of Which Country?: Composite States, National Histories and Patriotic Discourses in Early Modern East Central Europe (Brill, 2010), and Hungary and Romania beyond National Narratives: Comparisons and Entanglements (Peter Lang, 2013).
Michal Kopeček is Head of the Ideas and Concepts Department at the Institute of Contemporary History in Prague, and Co-Director of Imre Kertész Kolleg, Friedrich Schiller University in Jena. His publications include A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe: Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century' (with Balázs Trencsényi, Maciej Janowski, Monika Baar, Maria Falina, OUP, 2016), and Quest for the Revolution's Lost Meaning: Origins of the Marxist Revisionism in Central Europe, 1953-1960 (forthcoming Brill, 2018).
Luka Lisjak Gabrijelčič is a PhD candidate at the program in Comparative History of Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe at the Central European University, Budapest. His main fields of interest include intellectual history, nationalism, and history of political thought, with a focus on European peripheries and semi-peripheries. He co-authored a volume on modern radical ideologies ( Utopije demokracije, ZNK Masovna, 2005), and edited a volume on humanism in contemporary social and political thought ( Blodnjaki smisla: misliti humanizem danes, DHG, 2007). He is the editor of the Slovenian quarterly journal Razpotja.
Maria Falina is Lecturer in Modern European History at Dublin City University. Her main fields of interest are intellectual history, nationalism, and history of religion and politics. Her publications include A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe: Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century' (with Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopeček, Maciej Janowski, and Monika Baar, OUP, 2016), and articles such as 'Between >"Clerical Fascism>" and Political Orthodoxy: Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Interwar Serbia' in Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions, (2007) 8/2: 247-258, and 'Religion Visible and Invisible: The Case of Post-Yugoslav Anti-War Films', in C. Schmitt and L. Berezhnaya, eds. Iconic Turn(s): Religion and Nation in East European Films after 1989 (Brill, 2013).
Mónika Baár is Professor of Central European Studies at the University of Leiden. Her research focuses on modern historiography, cultural history and political thought, with special attention to the problem of marginality. Her publications include A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe: Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century' (with Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopeček, Maciej Janowski, and Maria Falina, OUP, 2016), and Historians and the Nationalism: East-Central Europe in the Nineteenth Century (OUP, 2010). She is Associate Editor of Nationalities Papers.
Maciej Janowski is Head of Section at the Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and Visiting Professor at the Central European University, Budapest. His main fields of interest are social and intellectual history of Central Europe and the history of liberalism. He is editor of the periodical East Central Europe (Brill) and Deputy Editor of Kwartalnik Historyczny. His publications include A History of Modern Political Thought in East Central Europe: Volume I: Negotiating Modernity in the 'Long Nineteenth Century' (with Balázs Trencsényi, Michal Kopeček, Mónika Baár, and Maria Falina, OUP, 2016), and Polish Liberal Thought before 1918 (CEU Press, 2004).More information at OUP.
Können wir aus der Geschichte lernen? Natürlich, sagt Philipp Scheibelreiter, seit März Professor für Antike Rechtsgeschichte und Römisches Recht an der Universität Wien. Zeitlose, dogmatische Argumente und unterschiedliche juristische Lösungsansätze stehen bei seiner Forschung im Mittelpunkt.
Aus der Vergangenheit lernen nicht nur HistorikerInnen, sondern auch JuristInnen. Zumindest, wenn sie sich wie Philipp Scheibelreiter mit der Antiken Rechtsgeschichte und dem Römischen Recht beschäftigen. Für den gebürtigen Wiener, der seit März 2018 Professor an der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Uni Wien ist, steht dabei das Zeitlose seines Faches im Vordergrund: "Wir können von der funktionierenden und lebendigen Rechtswissenschaft der römischen Antike viel lernen. Natürlich existierte damals noch keine Rechtsordnung, wie wir sie heutzutage kennen, aber mich interessieren die zeitlosen, dogmatischen Argumentationslinien der römischen Juristen: Wie kamen sie zu einer Entscheidungsfindung? Welche Argumente gebrauchten sie zur Problemlösung und warum?"
B.S. Chimni's study of customary international law (CIL) is a review of its role both as a supporter of the existing global capitalist order and as a potential instrument to challenge that order in favor of a postmodern deliberative reasoning as the shaper of a new CIL. It has been my view, since the The Decay of International Law? in 1986, that general customary international law is not an intelligible concept and not actually used in practice to demonstrate empirically the existence of any rule of law. I follow Hans Morgenthau, who wrote in 1940 in the American Journal of International Law that the manner in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses this concept is to decide what it likes and call it customary law. I reiterated this view in my review of the ICJ in the first edition of my Philosophy of International Law in 2007. While Chimni quotes my writings on general custom frequently and very positively in his article, this is always to support a progressive customary law and never to do what I would propose, which is to make a complete break with CIL in favor of an independent approach to the problems it is supposed to answer.
Comment les savoirs juridiques se constituent-ils en « disciplines » ? Quel rapport existe-t-il entre discipline,matière et branche du droit ? Quelles relations se nouent entre les divisions du droit, les catégories doctrinales, les exigences pédagogiques ou encore les divisions institutionnelles universitaires ? Comment distinguer entre la discipline juridique et les autres disciplines des sciences sociales ? Cet ouvrage, qui réunit les contributions de juristes, historiens, politistes et sociologues, est la première enquête d'ampleur sur la notion de discipline et son rôle dans les facultés de droit françaises. Les contributions présentées aident à comprendre les rapports qui se nouent entre le fond du droit positif, les savoirs juridiques, la communauté académique et les éléments institutionnels environnants. Elles éclairent, par conséquent, les mutations du paysage disciplinaire juridique contemporain et sa remise en cause sous l'effet de la montée de l'interdisciplinarité et de la « recherche par projet ».On editor and contributors:
Sous la direction de Frédéric Audren et Ségolène Barbou des Places, avec les contributions de Pascal Ancel, Julie Bailleux, Loïc Cadiet, Véronique Champeil-Desplats, Jean-Pascal Chazal, Jacques Chevallier, Jean-Louis Fabiani, Catherine Fillon, Benoit Frydman, Pascale Gonod, Nader Hakim, Jean-Louis Halpérin, Daniel Jutras, Danièle Lochak, Rémy Libchaber, Laurent Mucchielli, Horatia Muir Watt, Emmanuelle Picard, Sébastien Pimont, Guillaume Richard, Ruth Sefton-Green, Denys Simon et Patrick Wachsmann.More information with the publisher.
This study traces how Anglo-American legal thinkers used primitive law to develop their concepts of modern law in the century from Austin to Hart. It first examines how Maine developed his historical jurisprudence as a form of social evolutionary analysis of law. Next, it traces the development of legal anthropology as a distinct discipline combining the scientific method of participant observation with the legal method of the case study. Finally, it looks at how Hart uses primitive law to make his famous argument that law was ‘the union of primary and secondary rules’. In each case, legal thinkers develop their concepts of modern law through a foundational contrast with primitive law. This is a striking feature of much Anglo-American jurisprudence that cuts across the borders of the positivist, natural, historical, realist, and other schools of jurisprudence. Appreciating these new uses of primitive law is a first step in excavating an intellectual history of legal thought grounded in the context of colonial knowledge.Read the paper here.
À l’occasion du 70e anniversaire de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme et du cinquantième anniversaire de l’attribution du prix Nobel de la paix à René Cassin, ces journées d’études proposent de revenir sur l’émergence des droits de l’homme dans les relations internationales et sur leur place dans le monde contemporain. Que ce soit à l’issue des deux conflits mondiaux, avec l’adoption historique de la résolution 217 A III de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies le 10 décembre 1948, pendant la décolonisation ou à la fin de la guerre froide, le progrès des droits de l’homme est en jeu. La Conférence mondiale sur les droits de l’homme réunie à Vienne du 14 au 25 juin 1993 réaffirme avec force l’universalité et l’indivisibilité des droits de l’homme qui constituent désormais, avec la paix et le développement, l’un des trois piliers des Nations Unies. Cette inscription des droits de l’homme dans un temps long, associant diplomates, historiens et juristes, sera abordée au cours de ce colloque en s’appuyant notamment sur la présentation de sources et d’archives méconnues ou récemment ouvertes sur le sujet.Conference programme here.