Call for Proposals: 2013 ASIL Annual Meeting  

ASIL 107th Annual Meeting

International Law in a Multipolar World

During the Cold War, international relations and international law were dominated by the struggle for global control between the United States and the Soviet Union. The resulting clashes reverberated in legal issues relating to the functioning of the United Nations, the use of force, nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, etc. The third world countries, caught in the middle, repeatedly made claims for reform and initiated rule-making initiatives, but with limited results. After the end of the Cold War, the United States, its Western allies, and their shared economic and geopolitical interests remained largely unchallenged in the international arena.

While the United States is arguably still the only superpower and the European Union remains the largest economy, the world is undergoing major change. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and other States in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa are increasingly active voices in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, and have started questioning the dominance of the West in these organizations. These countries are forming alliances in the major international organizations and establishing new institutions to assert their authority and pursue their interests. In short, a new set of actors is moving onto center stage. In the process, these actors are seeking to reshape international rules governing trade and finance, military force, the environment, and beyond.

How will the international legal order evolve to reflect this new multipolar world? Will the international legal order undergo significant change as the global balance of power and influence shifts? Are there barriers preventing these actors from having a full voice in the international legal order? Can the major international organizations adapt adequately? Will new organizations emerge? How will human rights law, environmental law, trade law, the law of armed conflict, the law of the use of force, and other bodies of law reflect the interests and influence of a new set of actors? Are trends emerging already? How should the legal profession and nonlegal experts—in the fields of technology, finance, trade, climate science, arms conflict, and arms control—respond?

During the 2013 ASIL Annual Meeting we will address these questions and discuss the evolution of international law in a multipolar world.

The Society welcomes submissions from practitioners and academics on a range of topics encompassed within the 2013 theme statement. The Society invites suggestions of both panels and individual papers, including papers for inclusion in New Voices panels.

Link to Posting

From International Law Reporter
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 748 )
Harvard Law Review Symposium on Privacy and Technology: Call for Papers 

The Harvard Law Review is hosting a Symposium this November on the topic of Privacy & Technology. The Law Review is currently accepting abstracts for papers to be considered for publication in the Symposium Issue. To be considered for publication, please send an abstract of no more than 750 words to by June 15. Space in the issue is limited and papers will be selected on a rolling basis, so early submission is recommended. We strongly prefer abstracts for shorter essays that can be executed in fewer than 12,500 words (about 25 law review pages).

The following proposal gives a taste of what kinds of inquiries we are interested in. We are most interested in papers that challenge old concepts and categories and propose new ones that could potentially drive the development of privacy law in the following decades.

Today, we are witnessing astounding new technologies that efficiently gather, use, and analyze massive amounts of data. These changes have created a set of profound challenges for regulating privacy, as existing regulatory approaches are straining to keep up with rapid technological advances. The regulatory ideas and frameworks over the past few decades have failed to adequately respond to the constantly shifting technological landscape. Policymakers—among many different stakeholders—recognize that a new direction is needed for privacy law, but there remains much to be resolved about what direction it should head. Moreover, deep divides have emerged in how different societies regulate privacy despite the increased need for governments and businesses to share information across borders. These changes present challenges for the core conceptual underpinnings of privacy itself. We thus stand at a crossroads about how to regulate privacy and even how to think about privacy. The road forward will require a deep re-imagining of privacy in both theory and practice.

Theory: On the level of theory, the most crucial demand is to find out what interests are really at stake. What do we as a society really want? (Relatedly, should we even concern ourselves with the privacy regimes of other nations?) The relationship between the robustness of personalized services and their practically necessary encroachment on traditional zones of privacy needs to be addressed. Furthermore, what is the relationship between social and political culture and the architectural design of privacy protection? How do different conceptions of privacy bear on the capacity of participatory democracy? On liberalism generally? On the rule of law? In order to address the practical problems of protecting a particular set of privacy rights, we should be clear on what values we are trying to promote with privacy.

Executive Surveillance: Individuals and policy makers continually grapple with expanding executive encroachment on privacy brought about by new technologies. In the three separate opinions in Jones, the Supreme Court bantered about the constitutional concept of privacy in the realm of government surveillance. Although the opinion of the Court decided the case on narrow grounds, the concurrences suggest at least five justices might entertain a new, more expansive, and more nuanced conception of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Should the Court turn in this new direction and overhaul Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? In the modern information society, a wealth of data can now be obtained about the minutia of a person’s life. To what extent should the government have access to this data when maintained by private-sector entities? What limits should the government have in how it may use data after being collected? How should the fusion centers be regulated? How long should data be kept? The laws that regulate electronic surveillance and data use by the government are practically ancient, most being passed in the 1970s and 1980s. Hardly anyone can disagree that the law needs to be updated. But what, exactly, should the law provide? And in what direction will the Court take the Fourth Amendment? Is a more nuanced and contextual approach to the Fourth Amendment desirable or workable?

Private Data Collection: Meanwhile, Google, foremost among the corporate entities suggestively called “Big Data,” continues to amass scraps of information associated with Internet users, in hopes of aggregating the information into a powerfully predictive consumer profile with which it and other companies can selectively target individuals for services and advertising. Although the legal status of this activity in America is unclear, Google has been challenged in Europe for lack of transparency in its privacy policy. What should users expect companies to do with their personal data? Should there be limits on the extent that data is aggregated? Relatedly, do old conceptions of public and private help us properly analyze the social phenomenon of sharing? How does the rise of social media and the extensive self-exposure it brings alter privacy expectations? Should the data people share publicly be scraped together and aggregated and used in ways people were not expecting?

Comparative Perspectives: While American privacy law has varied substantially in different industries, and has often relied extensively on a self-regulatory approach, the Europeans have advanced broad and strong constitutional and statutory privacy rights through the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission. This year, the EC unveiled a new regulation that would expand on the 1995 Data Protection Directive, and will include within it new privacy rights, including the controversial “right to be forgotten.” What can American privacy law learn from these developments in Europe? Is it possible to translate some of the European privacy rights into American law? What can the EU learn from American privacy law? More practically, the significant differences between EU and American privacy approaches impede information flow and create immense challenges in an increasingly global economy. Can these differences be bridged?

From Concurring Opinions
[ add comment ] ( 4 views ) permalink ( 3 / 770 )
Crimmigration Control International Net of Studies presents: 1st Annual Crimmigration Control Conference 

Call for Papers
Crimmigration Control International Net of Studies presents:

1st Annual Crimmigration Control Conference
11-12 October 2012 in Coimbra, Portugal


Presentations must follow one of two formats: Oral or Written. All participants must be registered in the event, and the registration of at least one of the authors is mandatory in submissions with more than one author. Authors who intend to send their proposals for communications must send in their proposals by July 1st 2012. When making your submission, you should clearly indicate in which thematic workshop your paper and presentation fit best. Since we can only accept a limited number of papers per workshop, after the submission deadline the conference committee will be responsible for the selection and each contributor will be notified as soon as possible but no later than July 31st 2012. Selected authors will have their presentations published in the Congress Proceedings and will receive participation certificates in that quality. The conference proceedings (papers and plenary sessions) will be published in a book to be presented during next year’s Crimmigration Control conference. Attendees will be responsible for their own funding.

Four thematic workshops

As the Crimmigration Control International Net of Studies is still developing, the central theme will be Crimmigration as a form of Social Control in general. Specifically, we have developed targeted thematic workshops based on our common interests. The four themes of the workshops are:

W 1 - Crimmigration: States vs. Immigrants
W 2 - Irregular/Illegal Immigration in the 21st century
W 3 - Justice and Social Control
W 4 - Discourses of Fear

Abstract and Paper Submission Requirements

In order to participate, authors must submit their abstracts before July 1st, 2012. Abstracts must be written in the Congress official languages, Portuguese or English.. Submissions should report original work that has not been previously published. Contributions that advance the theory or practice of any aspect of crimmigration and crime control are welcomed. This includes for example theoretical papers, practice case studies, empirical evaluation and methodological work.

Abstracts must follow narrative format with 500 words, and the selection of a Topic Area and a Presentation Format (oral or written) is mandatory. Abstracts must include the author(s) identification, professional or academic affiliation (whenever applied) and contacts. Additionally, abstracts must comply with the following authoring guidelines:

1- Title, with a maximum of 100 characters (including spaces)/approximately 10 words;

2 - Three to five keywords arranged according to the relevance of their content in the presentation;

3- A brief description of the presentation goals, its theoretical framework, methodology, main conclusions and bibliographical references;

Investigation works should include their objectives, hypotheses and methodological procedures, namely data collection dates, participants, research techniques and main results.

Link to Full Posting

From Faculty Law Conference Updates
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 758 )
AALS International Human Rights - Call for Papers 

The International Human Rights Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) has issued a call for papers for its January 2013 Annual Meeting. The topic is International Human Rights in Times of Conflict and the call is specifically for New Voices in Human Rights. The deadline to submit a paper is September 4, 2012 and papers should be sent to Professor William Dunlap at Quinnipiac University. The Annual Meeting will be held January 4-7, 2013 in New Orleans, LA and the section program will be held on Sunday, January 6 from 8:30 to 10:15 am.

From International Law Prof Blog and Faculty Law Conference Updates
[ add comment ] ( 1 view ) permalink ( 3 / 763 )
The Autumn 20th CLaSF workshop - Edinburgh Law School  

Call for papers -Autumn 20th CLaSF workshop Edinburgh Law School on Thursday Sept 13 2012 - Competition Law and the Economic Crisis Deadline - 31 May 2012 CLASF CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE 20th CLaSF WORKSHOP EDINBURGH LAW SCHOOL, THURSDAY 13th SEPTEMBER 2012 Competition law and the economic crisis The next Competition Law scholars’ Forum will consider the broad theme of competition law and the issues arising from the economic crisis. Since Autumn 2008, and to this day, a broad ranging crisis has swept through a growing number of economic sectors; starting from the banking and financial sector, the crisis has affected numerous industries and has triggered sometimes “convulsive” reactions by the public authorities, the economic operators and many of the stakeholders. But what role has competition law played in this scenario? According to the EU Commission the effective application of the competition rules is an essential tool to rebuild a fragile economy: however, the intervention of many member states to “prop up” “failing” businesses, such as the British Government-backed rescue of Northern Rock, seems to cast doubt on this commitment. However, state aid is not the only area in which the “rules of the game” seems to have been bent in order to deal with the emergency. Merger policy has equally proven an invaluable tool to facilitate the restructuring of entire industries and thereby “weather the storm” of the crisis, especially at domestic, as opposed to EU level. But as it stands, the worse does not seem to be over yet. As the economy still seems to be faltering in many quarters and another bout of monetary and financial losses loom, the question is how the maintenance of effective rivalry among competitors can be attained without stifling the weak recovery, so that goals of growth and welfare of consumers across Europe can be achieved in the medium and long term. As the Commissioner for Competition, Joaquim Almunia, stated at the beginning of December, while it would have been preferable to terminate the “crisis regime” governing the application of the competition rules to the financial sector after three years, the sovereign debt crisis has meant that these exceptional rules are going to remain in force for a while yet. This decision however is likely to have considerable effects on the financial and banking market: it will affect, on the one hand, the relationship between the banks and the domestic authorities, especially in respect to providing extra guarantees, and, on the other hand, the reciprocal relations between competing financial and banking institutions, who are faced with considerable and increasingly uniform capitalisation obligations. But what does this all mean for the “European project” of a competitive, social market economy? It is clear that the current predicament is having and will continue to have ripple effects throughout the real economy: thus, it could be argued that any solution for the financial crisis will be both an example for other sectors and a springboard through which recovery can kickstart in numerous industries. This workshop seeks to address the issues arising from the interplay of the competition rules and the “real questions” emerging from the current economic crisis, not just in the banking and financial sectors but also in the wider “real economy” arena. Papers and discussions are expected to touch upon themes such as (but not limited to): - the objectives and the limits of competition law more generally; - the interplay between consumer welfare and economic efficiency and broader social market goals, such as the maintenance of employment levels in times of crisis; - the evolution of merger policy as a means to tackle the consequences of economic downturn; - cooperation as a means of “guided restructuring” in industries facing crisis: from crisis cartels to joint ventures seeking to rely on investment as a way out of the slump; - The problems of “moral hazard” and “too big to fail”? The public interest implications of banking restructuring for the stability of the sector; - “Too muddled to work?” Consumer protection in a concentrated banking and financial sector—the role of information and transparency; - The market for credit rating services: friend or foe? - When will it all end? And has it worked? State aid and the financial crisis. Papers are invited from scholars, regulators and practitioners on any of these issues or other topics which fall generally within the broad theme of ‘Competition Law and the economic crisis’. Any person interested in presenting a paper at the workshop is asked to contact the Vice-Chair of CLaSF, Professor Barry Rodger at An abstract is required of approximately 500-1000 words, to be submitted by no later than 31 May, with decisions taken by no later than 15 June. Submission of presentation/draft paper is also required a week prior to the workshop. Papers presented at the workshop can be submitted to the Competition Law Review editorial board with a view to being published in the Review. Note that the Review is a fully refereed scholarly law journal: Submission does not guarantee publication.

From Society of Legal Scholars
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 775 )

14-15 DECEMBER 2012

Societies often have ambiguous and even conflicting attitudes towards state institutions that fulfil normalising, reformatory, punitive or disciplinary functions. This unease is frequently represented in an ambivalence or a hostility not only towards those disciplined or incarcerated but also, and perhaps paradoxically, towards the agents of those institutions, e.g. state incarcerators, the police, interrogators, soldiers, counterterrorist agents, or staff in mental hospitals. These figures tend to be conceptualised and represented in simplistic and often reductively negative terms. This demonisation reflects an unease towards institutions that are understood to be at once socially and politically necessary and saturated with threatening potential.

We invite papers that interrogate narrative negotiations of the tensions encountered by these figures and in these relationships; tensions between agency and victimhood, necessity and guilt, legitimate and abusive uses of power and violence. We may, for example, be overfamiliar with literary, filmic or popular cultural narratives of captivity that privilege the experience of incarceration or miscarriages of justice, in which the disciplining subject occupies a reified or stereotyped position; what representational potentials have remained underexplored in cultural or political discourses?

Themes for papers could include, but are not limited to, narrative representations of
Agency and victimhood
Ethical reflections on institutional and individual culpability
Stereotypes/prejudices (and their deconstruction)
Racial/ethnic/national inflections of ‘culpability’
Women and normative masculinities
Guilt, responsibility, deserved punitivity
‘Dirty work’
‘Clean’/non-scarring violence
Legitimacy and the abuse of power
State violence and its parameters
Torturers, torture and abuse; the representation of torturers
Trauma, testimony
Colonial and neocolonial disciplinary configurations
Authority, power, powerlessness
Theoretical conceptualisations of disciplinary agents

The conference is organised by Alex Adams (Newcastle University) and Cornelia Wächter (University of Paderborn, Bielefeld University) in cooperation with the Institute of English Studies (University of London) and the Human Rights Consortium (University of London). Please email 200-300 word abstracts for 20 minute papers to and by Sunday, 19th August 2012.

Link to Full Posting

Link to Website

From Society of Legal Scholars
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 745 )
Seville: Standard of Review of International Courts and Tribunals -- Call for Papers 

Standard of Review in International Courts and Tribunals
Rethinking the Fragmentation and Constitutionalization of International Law
26-27 October 2012

Sponsored by: COST Action IS1003, International Law Between Constitutionalization and Fragmentation
University of Seville, Faculty of Law

This workshop intends to analyze different approaches taken by international courts and tribunals when confronted with factual, political and legal determinations made at the national
level. The workshop will concentrate on two interrelated aspects: (i) standard of review applied by international courts to municipal measures (actions) that are based on prior complex factual determinations and (ii) standard of review applied by international courts to political decisions that involve trade-offs between different competing values (and corresponding legal determinations).

The specific questions that we would like to address include:

• To what extent different international tribunals operating in different functional regimes apply the same/similar standard of review when confronted with complex factual issues, political choices and normative flexibilities?

• If there are differences, what may explain them? Is specific institutional setting relevant? Political context? Values that are protected by particular functional system? Or maybe subject matter of a dispute?

• If there are similarities, can we identify some meta-norms of constitutional character? What can explain existing (if any) convergences?

• What are the consequences of differences (if any) in applicable standards of review used by various international tribunals? Do they contribute to fragmentation of international law?

• Is there uniformity or divergence between standards of review applied by international courts to factual and legal determinations?

• What is the connection between applicable standard of review and legitimacy of decisions rendered by international courts and tribunals? An non-exhaustive list of international tribunals or other supervisory organs that are of our interest includes: WTO panels and the Appellate Body, the European Court of Human Rights,
the International Court of Justice, the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, NAFTA panels, arbitration tribunals and ad hoc panels under investment treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EFTA Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Authors of selected papers will be invited to publish their works in an edited volume with a renowned international publisher. Invitations to contribute to the edited volume will depend
on the quality of the work presented at the conference.


The workshop is organized by Prof. Dr. Daniel García San José and it will be held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Seville.


Applicants should send in a 250-500 words abstract no later than 15 June 2012 to:
Dr. Lukasz Gruszczynski,
Prof. dr. Wouter Werner,

Link to full posting.

From International Law Reporter
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 618 )
4th Government Law College International Law Summit -- Students for the Promotion of International Law 

“Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation”
February 1-3, 2013
Government Law College
Mumbai, India

Submissions dealing with the realm of International Arbitration and Mediation will be accepted for the Summit’s call for papers. Deadline to be announced.

For any questions, contact, or visit

From Legal Scholarship Blog.
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 628 )
AALS The Debt Crisis and the National Response – New Orleans, LA 

The AALS sections on Poverty Law and Clinical Legal Education will sponsor a joint program on January 5, 2013, at the AALS Annual Meeting, entitled The Debt Crisis and the National Response: Big Changes or Tinkering at the Edges? The program will explore ways in which our clients and communities have experienced the national debt crisis.

More information at Legal Scholarship Blog
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 630 )
Call for Papers American Society of International Law International Economic Law Interest Group (IEcLIG) 

2012 Biennial Interest Group Conference:
Re-Conceptualizing International Economic Law:
Bridging the Public/Private Divide

George Washington University Law School
Washington D.C., USA
November 29-December 1, 2012

International economic law purports to regulate and facilitate various cross-border business activities, such as exports and imports, financial transactions, and foreign direct investment. Its architecture, which the Bretton Woods consensus established six decades ago, is based largely on a “state-to-state” framework. However, as both the nature and modalities of the underlying international business transactions transform, the conventional statist model of international economic law needs adjustment, or at least re-examination. For example, widespread global supply chains increasingly challenge the wisdom of traditional customs regulations that were created against the backdrop of a mono-location production model. In the area of foreign direct investment, a host government is often viewed as a mere party to a contract, not necessarily as a sovereign regulator. As was seen in the making of Basel III, private actors (such as bankers) play a critical role in shaping regulations.

These recent trends compel us to break away from long-standing principles that separate public actors from private actors. It is fruitless to consider the work of public actors without considering the efforts of the private sector. In this regard, it is high time that scholars, practitioners and policymakers develop new ideas, doctrines, research agendas, and policy proposals to re-conceptualize international economic law to keep abreast of the new regulatory environment.

We encourage proposals for papers from both new and established scholars and practitioners so that they may engage with each other. Paper proposals and all other program-related proposals must be submitted electronically by July 30 2012 to Proposals should include the author's name and full contact information, and an abstract of no more than 300 words. A Conference Committee (TBA) will review and select proposals.

Decisions regarding inclusion in the conference program will be sent by September 1, 2012. Paper contributors will be expected to provide full paper drafts by November 1, 2012.
This conference is being co-sponsored by the George Washington University School of Law.

Link to Posting

From International Law Reporter

[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 657 )

<<First <Back | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | Next> Last>>