Search Results

When a claimant demands an interpretation of a right in international law that goes beyond existing conventional, statutory or customary norms, proceedings enter the uncharted area of equity in international law. This original book tackles this complex subject with precision and authority. Evaluating past applications of equity, it contributes to improving the record of judicial performance in controversies for which equity is alleged to be relevant. Any decisionmaker confronted with a claim to apply equity will benefit greatly from this book.

Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.
James Brown Scott and the Origins of Modern International Law
Part detective story, part intellectual history of the rise of international law, and part critique, this original, thoughtful work offers readers both a fresh perspective on important historical developments in international law and a new level of comprehension and guidance into its future.
Understanding the development of international law and its connection to morality contributes to an assessment of the problems and prospects of international law today. Using James Brown Scott, the controversial American international lawyer, as a vehicle, the author engages in a probing examination of perspectives on the workings of the legal order centered on the concept of "plenitudinism"-a multi-layered expression of the idea of fullness in the international legal system.
This challenging work provides revealing insights about the past, the failings, and the possibilities in international law, particularly in the field of enforcement of human rights.
Elihu Root, the Monroe Doctrine, and International Law in the Americas
International law’s turn to history in the Americas receives invigorated refreshment with Christopher Rossi’s adaptation of the insightful and inter-disciplinary teachings of the English School and Cambridge contextualists to problems of hemispheric methodology and historiography. Rossi sheds new light on abridgments of history and the propensity to construct and legitimize whiggish understandings of international law based on simplified tropes of liberal and postcolonial treatments of the Monroe Doctrine. Central to his story is the retelling of the Monroe Doctrine by its supreme early twentieth century interlocutor, Elihu Root and other like-minded internationalists. Rossi’s revival of whiggish international law cautions against the contemporary tendency to re-read history with both eyes cast on the ideological present as a justification for misperceived historical sequencing.

The Responsibility to Protect is almost fifteen years old and yet opinions diverge widely about its utility as a tool of international humanitarian law. Scholars and diplomats continue to debate its most discussed feature – the secondary responsibility of the international community to aid suffering populations of internal disputes when the host State or United Nations Charter system fails to do the same. This paper argues that much of the current debate is out of focus and at cross purpose and is due to disconnected strands of a plenitudinal mindset in law, found elsewhere as well in humanitarian law, which tend to view humanitarian law either from structural or substantive perspectives, but not from both perspectives. A unified understanding of the plenitudinal mindset re-focuses the discussion around an important common denominator, the need to bridge legal gaps and avoid the appearance of non liquet in the development of international humanitarian law. Disconnected discussions on the Responsibility to Protect are not as disconnected as they appear because opposing views regard as equally odious the silences and gaps of the United Nations Charter system. Borrowing somewhat from social process theory, this paper highlights the need and ability of international humanitarian law to re-forge the broken chain that can strengthen the Responsibility to Protect.

In: Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies

Once considered impassable due to icebound conditions of the High Arctic, receding ice attributed to climate change and projections of ice-free polar seasons in coming decades may soon make the Northeast Passage a commercially viable conduit for seafaring traffic. A major stretch of this waterway atop Russia, straddling Eurasia from Providence Bay to Murmansk, passes through important geographic bottlenecks that scantily ever have been traversed by non-Russian ships, until most recently. This stretch, referred to as the Northern Sea Route, is claimed by Russia as historic waters, making its use subject to Russia’s complete sovereign decisions. The United States regards the Route as an international strait connecting two high seas, making transit free and open to all ships, military or commercial, in accordance with traditional High Seas freedoms and a newer right of transit passage. This article considers the prospect of a coming clash in the waters of the High Arctic over the legal status of the Northern Sea Route. Through analogous application of the Roman law principle of uti possidetis juris, a principle adapted to international law, but with serious criticism, this article argues that Russia’s claim of sovereign control over the Route finds legal support but is pragmatically and strategically weak. Existing lacunae in the governing international law of the sea nevertheless make consideration of the principle valuable, particularly components of the principle that emphasise factual circumstances, called effectivités, which support Russia’s claim. The creeping pelagic significance of this principle, historically tethered to terrestrial border delimitations and more recently to factual patterns involving gross human rights abuse, is affirmed, notwithstanding doctrinal criticisms about its topical application.

In: Nordic Journal of International Law
In: Whiggish International Law
In: Whiggish International Law
In: Whiggish International Law
In: Whiggish International Law
In: Whiggish International Law