International Law

The Research Center for International Legal Studies of National Chengchi University and the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law will hold the 2025 ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum at Howard Civil Service International House in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. The theme of the Research Forum is “Sustainable International Law.” ​​

Join us for a roundtable discussion on the unique status of international financial institutions (IFIs) in international law. This conversation will focus on whether, in international legal terms, international financial institutions (IFIs) should be treated like any other international organization or if their specialized mission necessitates granting them a special status. It will assess the validity of the IFIs concerns that the Articles on Responsibility of International Organisations (ARIO) are not easily applied to their operations and what changes may be needed to address these concerns.

This workshop aims to produce an edited volume that will build upon the past contributions from the first Berlin event to address the main themes and conclusions from academic exchanges continued in Geneva. Participants will be asked to circulate draft papers of between 5000-7000 words before the workshop so that these can be shared among the participants to inform discussions at the workshop and ensure that you receive substantive feedback. Subject to peer review, a selection of presented papers will be considered for publication in the edited volume.

The Transnational Association of Legal Scholars (TALS) is a group of legal scholars experienced in research and supervision and interested in the conduct and method of research in law.

I immensely enjoyed reading Dr. Mbori’s piece in Afronomicslaw titled ‘Hidden in Plain Sight: Kenyan Supreme Court Shooting is own Foot on Merits Review and Appellate Jurisdiction in Continuing Supremacy Battle with the East Africa Court of Justice (EACJ). I now have the pleasure of partially disagreeing with him particularly on whether the EACJ has (merit) review jurisdiction over national laws. This comment is not an attempt at exhaustively analysing the Supreme Court Advisory Opinion in Reference No. E001 of 2022. I found that Advisory Opinion to be surface-level, a bit incoherent and internally inconsistent, and devoid of adequate reasoning. As such, I refrain from commenting on other key issues in the Advisory Opinion. Some of those issues are: how the Court determined that it has jurisdiction to issue the opinion; the relationship between international and municipal law; the Court’s repeated failure to distinguish sources of international law and their interaction with municipal law; the court’s (misplaced) discussion on subsidiarity and margin of appreciation, and the apportionment of interpretation and application functions between the EACJ and domestic courts. Rather, my comment is restricted to the question of whether the EACJ has (merit) review jurisdiction over national laws, which the Supreme Court answered in the negative and which Dr. Mbori answers in the affirmative. I partially disagree with both the Supreme Court and Dr. Mbori, but for different albeit related reasons.

To this end, we seek contributions from economists, IR scholars, political theo-rists, historians, sociologists and lawyers to explore this important question as well as its theoretical and practical implications. We will explore these and other urgent question in a two-day workshop that will take place on the 5th and 6th of December 2024 at the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). If interested, please send us an abstract of no more than 400 words and a short bio of no more than 50 words by the 1st of July 2024 at dollarandsovereignty@gmail.com. Limited funding may be available for speakers who do not have access to institutional funding.

This symposium will seek to foster debate about how double standards are expressed within international law and enhance understanding of how evidence of double standards impacts perceptions and practice. It will feature a wide range of papers that show the many ways that claims and evidence of double standards manifest in different forms of international legal argument, as well as time- and area-specific considerations of how double standards operate in different fields of international law, including from Global South(s) and empirical perspectives. This symposium will bring together scholars and practitioners, from various fields of international law and through divergent theoretical and geographical perspectives.

The American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) is pleased to invite panel proposals for International Law Weekend 2024 (ILW 2024)—the premier international law event of the fall season. ILW 2024 will take place October 24-26, 2024 in New York City.

Olakpe's scholarly contribution is a thought-provoking addition to the discourse on South-South migration. Through an in-depth conceptual and methodological analysis of the law from below and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), Olakpe unveils the intricate layers of migration dynamics. Departing from the conventional south-north migration paradigm, this book unpacks the nuances of south-south migration through a critical and transformative lens, reorienting the dialogue towards the subtleties that characterize this unique migration pattern. At the heart of Olakpe's approach lies her innovative utilization of case studies and legal ethnographies in Nigeria and China. These studies serve as a lens through which she illuminates the experiences of marginalized subaltern communities, offering a critique of international law's role within the context of South-South migrations.

Both the proponents and critics of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) have called for a closer examination of the state of affairs in Third World countries, as opposed to the sole focus of examining the impact of colonialism and Western action, to explain and understand the impact of international law on these countries. The aim for such a call, mainly of the critics, appears to be the need to highlight the role of actors within the Third World in the existing socio-economic and political conditions and the problems in these countries. While conceding the share of responsibility of Third World leadership for the ongoing cycle of problems faced by Third World people, the call of TWAIL scholars primarily focuses on the grander objective of elevating Third World voices, narratives, and discourse into a meaningful mainstream position. Oreva Olakpe’s book makes a great contribution in this respect. It methodically examines the understanding of international law and its impact on the everyday lives of people in the Global South. It does so by solely relying on sources of knowledge in the Global South. The book makes a crucial epistemological intervention that seriously questions the status quo of knowledge production in international law, which heavily relies on the laws, policies, and experiences of the Global North, and asserts the vitality of shifting to the laws, policies, and experiences of the Global South to generate knowledge