Podcasts about comparative public law

Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2025: Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law: Continuing Conversations with Karen KnopWe will come together to celebrate the life and scholarship of our colleague and friend, Professor Karen Knop (1960-2022). Karen, until her untimely passing, was the Cecil A Wright Chair at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law. A long-time friend of the Lauterpacht Centre, Karen was to have delivered the Centre's 2025 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures.Session III Private and Foreign Relations LawProfessor Anne Peters in conversation with Dr Roxana BanuChair: Professor Campbell McLachlanProfessor Peters's talk, 'Populism, Foreign Relations Law, and global order and justice', will discuss populist foreign relations law, which was Karen Knop's last project, at the university of Helsinki and as a Max Planck fellow. This talk will make the point that ongoing transformations of the concept of law itself, of legal procedures, and of legal substance cut across the ‘levels' of governance. And neither identitarian rhetoric, nor trade wars, nor border-fences will bring back an inter-state, Westphalian (or ‘Eastfalian') order. We are living in conditions of global law (and transnational) law. Populist heads of state both deploy and defy this law (concluding populist treaties or deals such as the German-Turkish refugee agreements; denouncing treaties such as ICSID or the Paris Agreement; using their war powers to escape domestic critique; raising tariffs to please their voter-base, and so on). At the same time, domestic, local and transnational actors (ranging from cities to courts to Indigenous peoples, or philanthro-capitalists) activate all kinds of law to resist populism. Such global lawfare destabilises world order but also has a transformative potential. New legal forms (especially informal agreements), new legal processes (such as public interest litigation before the ICJ) and new legal principles (such as One Health; Rectification/reparation; and the exposure of double standards) are responding to the big challenges for global order and justice: the cultural, the social, and the ecological challenge. Dr Banu's talk, 'Foreign Affairs, Self-Determination and Private International Law', begins with the point that foreign affairs questions are often thought to lie at the very edge of private international law, perhaps in the leftover corners of the historical alignment between private and public international law. Similarly, in part on the assumption that private international law settles conflicts of laws between already established states, there wouldn't appear to be any intuitive connection between nationalist or self-determination movements and the field of private international law.This talk will show that these assumptions are mistaken. By engaging with the historical development of the field from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, the talk will show that private international law has been deeply enmeshed in major geopolitical events generally, and in nationalist and self-determination movements, in particular. This enmeshment is neither accidental, nor exclusively modern. It is the inevitable result of some of private international law's main analytical and conceptual building blocks. Anne Peters is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg (Germany), and Professor at the universities of Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin and Basel (Switzerland). Roxana Banu is Associate Professor and Tutorial Fellow at the Faculty of Law and Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.

Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2025: Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law: Continuing Conversations with Karen KnopWe will come together to celebrate the life and scholarship of our colleague and friend, Professor Karen Knop (1960-2022). Karen, until her untimely passing, was the Cecil A Wright Chair at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law. A long-time friend of the Lauterpacht Centre, Karen was to have delivered the Centre's 2025 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures.Session III Private and Foreign Relations LawProfessor Anne Peters in conversation with Dr Roxana BanuChair: Professor Campbell McLachlanProfessor Peters's talk, 'Populism, Foreign Relations Law, and global order and justice', will discuss populist foreign relations law, which was Karen Knop's last project, at the university of Helsinki and as a Max Planck fellow. This talk will make the point that ongoing transformations of the concept of law itself, of legal procedures, and of legal substance cut across the ‘levels' of governance. And neither identitarian rhetoric, nor trade wars, nor border-fences will bring back an inter-state, Westphalian (or ‘Eastfalian') order. We are living in conditions of global law (and transnational) law. Populist heads of state both deploy and defy this law (concluding populist treaties or deals such as the German-Turkish refugee agreements; denouncing treaties such as ICSID or the Paris Agreement; using their war powers to escape domestic critique; raising tariffs to please their voter-base, and so on). At the same time, domestic, local and transnational actors (ranging from cities to courts to Indigenous peoples, or philanthro-capitalists) activate all kinds of law to resist populism. Such global lawfare destabilises world order but also has a transformative potential. New legal forms (especially informal agreements), new legal processes (such as public interest litigation before the ICJ) and new legal principles (such as One Health; Rectification/reparation; and the exposure of double standards) are responding to the big challenges for global order and justice: the cultural, the social, and the ecological challenge. Dr Banu's talk, 'Foreign Affairs, Self-Determination and Private International Law', begins with the point that foreign affairs questions are often thought to lie at the very edge of private international law, perhaps in the leftover corners of the historical alignment between private and public international law. Similarly, in part on the assumption that private international law settles conflicts of laws between already established states, there wouldn't appear to be any intuitive connection between nationalist or self-determination movements and the field of private international law.This talk will show that these assumptions are mistaken. By engaging with the historical development of the field from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, the talk will show that private international law has been deeply enmeshed in major geopolitical events generally, and in nationalist and self-determination movements, in particular. This enmeshment is neither accidental, nor exclusively modern. It is the inevitable result of some of private international law's main analytical and conceptual building blocks. Anne Peters is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg (Germany), and Professor at the universities of Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin and Basel (Switzerland). Roxana Banu is Associate Professor and Tutorial Fellow at the Faculty of Law and Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.

Guest: Erik Tuchtfeld (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) The Internet connects people from across the globe: it facilitates communication and has single-handedly transformed education, commerce, and entertainment. But who controls what we can say and find on the Internet? Or better put, who are the Internet's Global Gatekeepers? In this episode, Erik Tuchtfeld and Christopher Murphy dive into the complex world of online content moderation and discuss its far-reaching implications. Link to Erik's research papers: https://www.mpil.de/en/pub/institute/personnel/academic-staff/etuchtfe.cfm

Since the seminal 2018 Portuguese Judges case, it has been established that violations of values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) can be litigated before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Currently, proceedings are ongoing in the European Commission's infringement action against Hungary, the argument being that its anti-LGBTQI+ laws breach provisions of the internal market, several Charter rights, and, importantly, the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The case, known as Valeurs de l'Union, has been hailed as the “largest human rights battle in EU history.”In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast episode, our co-managing editor, Dr. Oliver Garner, discusses the enforcement of the Union's values at the Member State level as well as at the Union's institutional level with Dr. Luke Dimitrios Spieker.Dr. Spieker is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and Postdoctoral Researcher at Humboldt University in Berlin. In his monograph, EU Values before the Court of Justice, published by Oxford University Press, he analyzes the foundations, potential, and risks of the mobilization of Article 2 TEU.

Guest: Janne Mende (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) This episode delves into the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, a ruling that sparked intense national protest and division. Janne Mende and Christopher Murphy analyse the decision, connecting it to the concept of norm decoupling, which describes the increasing separation of liberal-democratic norms from their traditional interpretations and applications. The discussion then turns to whether the handling of abortion rights in the US is indicative of a more general backsliding of liberal-democratic norms.

In deze aflevering duiken we de wereld van de rechtspraak in. Want terwijl de noodzaak om onze vleesconsumptie te verminderen steeds duidelijker wordt, nemen overheden geen actie. De vee-industrie wordt nog altijd gesubsidieerd en ontwijkt klimaatmaatregelen. Steeds meer ogen richten dan ook op de rechtspraak: kunnen we via het recht overheden en bedrijven dwingen om in actie te komen?Esther bezoekt de conferentie Defund Meat, georganiseerd door het Max Planck Instituut. Wetenschappers van over de hele wereld komen hier samen om te bespreken hoe we het recht kunnen inzetten voor milieu, dieren en maatschappij. Ze interviewt daar vier wetenschappers: André Nollkaemperprofessor internationaal recht en duurzaamheid aan de Universiteit van Amsterdamhttps://www.uva.nl/profiel/n/o/p.a.nollkaemper/p.a.nollkaemper.html Jennifer Jacquethoogleraar Milieuwetenschap en Beleid aan de Universiteit van Miamihttps://jenniferjacquet.com/Nicolas Treichlandbouweconoom aan de Toulouse School of Economicshttps://www.nicolastreich.com/Cesare RomanoLyola rechtenuniversiteit in Los Angeleshttps://www.lls.edu/faculty/facultylistl-r/cesareprromano/Meer informatie over de conferentie Defund Meat:https://www.mpil.de/en/pub/news/conferences-workshops/defund-meat.cfmCredits:Interviews en montage: Esther Molenwijk Met dank aan het Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International LawAudio mixage: Marlon van der Pas, Nothing BlankHelp ons het plantaardige nieuws te verspreiden: deel deze podcast.Ga naar studioplantaardig.nl en volg ons via BlueSky, Mastodon, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok & #StudioPlantaardigGeef onze podcast ook een rating en schrijf een mooie recensie. Alvast enorm bedankt!

Money on the Left speaks with Edward Jones Corredera, author of Odious Debt: Bankruptcy, International Law, and the Making of Latin America (Oxford University Press, 2024). What are fallen tyrants owed? What makes debt illegitimate? And when is bankruptcy moral? Odious Debt shows how Latin American nations have wrestled with the morality of indebtedness and insolvency since their foundation, and outlines how Latin America's forgotten history of contestation can shed new light on seemingly intractable contemporary dilemmas.With a focus on the early modern Spanish Empire and modern Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina, Odious Debt explores how discussions about the morality of debt and default played a structuring role in the construction and codification of national constitutions, identities, and international legal norms in Latin America. Ultimately, Corredera reveals how Latin American jurists developed a powerful global critique of economics and international law which, in rejecting the political violence promulgated in the name of unjust debt, continues to generate pressing questions about debt, bankruptcy, reparations, and the pursuit of a moral world economy.Corredera is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and Lecturer in History at Spain's National Distance Education University.Visit our Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/MoLsuperstructureMusic by Nahneen Kula: www.nahneenkula.com

Guest: Raphael Schäfer (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) One of international law's greatest concerns is ensuring peace. However, sometimes this simply isn't possible. In such instances, the goal of international law then swings towards guaranteeing ‘humane' warfare and resolving conflicts as quickly as possible. In today's Lawcast episode, Raphael Schäfer elaborates on the functioning of the laws of war based on their historical context. Although warfare has rapidly evolved over the centuries, the associated death and destruction have not. So what can today's politicians learn from the politicians of yesteryear when it comes to reining in conflicts before they spiral out of control?

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law and a revised and expanded version of the lectures is usually published in the Hersch Lauterpacht Lecture Series by Cambridge University Press. The lecture comprises three parts, delivered on consecutive evenings, followed by a Q&A session on the fourth day. The 2017 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture series, entitled 'Privatisation Under and Of Public International Law' was delivered at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, by Professor Anne Peters, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg , from Tuesday 7 to Friday 10 March 2017. This part, entitled 'The Private Actions' Public Functions and Public International Law Constraints', is the third of the three lectures given.

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law and a revised and expanded version of the lectures is usually published in the Hersch Lauterpacht Lecture Series by Cambridge University Press. The lecture comprises three parts, delivered on consecutive evenings, followed by a Q&A session on the fourth day. The 2017 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture series, entitled 'Privatisation Under and Of Public International Law' was delivered at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, by Professor Anne Peters, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg , from Tuesday 7 to Friday 10 March 2017. This part, entitled 'The Privatisation of International Organisations', is the second of the three lectures given.

Alexander Wentker, a senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, discusses what makes countries party to a conflict when providing wartime support. Wentker was introduced by Professor Ashley Deeks. The event was sponsored by the National Security Law Center and co-sponsored by the Center for International & Comparative Law. (University of Virginia School of Law, Nov. 19, 2024)

This week, we are joined once more by our friend and comparative constitutional law expert from the mean streets of Padua—Andrea Pin. We discuss his brand new book from Brill entitled, Religious Freedom without the Rule of Law: The Constitutional Odysseys of Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq and the Fate of the Middle East (here). Whereby last time we spoke about the development of religious freedom jurisprudence in Europe (listen here), this time we venture into the Islamic world by considering the rule of law and its implications in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq. I ask him about the meaning of “rule of law” and whether it remains a purely Western convention. I ask about the role of community life in his focused regions as it relates to the ways they negotiate legal disputes and tribal tensions. I ask about the role of religious conversion and what happens after. And much more. Andrea Pin is the Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law at the University of Padova Law School and a senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. Full bio. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Guest: Philipp Sauter (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law). In this episode Christopher Murphy talks with Philipp Sauter about nuclear fusion. As opposed to nuclear fission, i.e., splitting a heavy atomic nucleus into smaller nuclei, nuclear fusion uses the opposite approach to combine - or fuse - light atomic nuclei into heavier ones. Through recent scientific breakthroughs the possibility of using nuclear fusion to provide the world with a practically inexhaustible source of green energy has become tantalisingly close. Consequently, the time is right to discuss how this tremendous power should be best regulated to ensure maximum safety while not stifling scientific ingenuity. (Audio Production: www.citysoundstudio.de)

We speak with Erik Tuchtfeld. He is a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg and Associate Editor at Verfassungsblog. We will discuss his text 'Be Careful What You Wish For', dealing with the interplay between freedom of speech and the fight against hate speech on the internet as seen by the European Court on Human Rights in some of its recent decisions. Links: https://verfassungsblog.de/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GFoE_Content-Moderation.pdf

In this episode Adam and Alexandra open up with a discussion on the latest news in the region including Georgia's president surviving an impeachment proceeding; Viktor Orban's meeting in China; latest on Nagorno-Karabakh and developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.The main interview features Anna Wójcik, co-founder and editor of “Rule of Law in Poland” and The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive, a rule of law monitoring project. She is also a Humboldt Foundation Fellow at the Max Planck Institute of Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. Anna shares her perspective on the results of the recent elections in Poland, how fair were they, what are the next steps in the power transition and all the challenges the new government will face in restoring the rule of law in Poland.For context read: “Wind of change” by Daniel Gleichgewicht, New Eastern Europe 17 October 2023: https://neweasterneurope.eu/2023/10/17/wind-of-change/Our Guest's Resources:“Rule of Law in Poland” https://ruleoflaw.pl/The Wiktor Osiatyński Archive https://archiwumosiatynskiego.pl/en/>>> Support the podcast, become a patron, get additional benefits: https://bit.ly/3nMGeYj >>>This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4065065/advertisement

Guest: Carolyn Moser (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law). In this episode Christopher Murphy holds a captivating discussion with Carolyn Moser, Head of the Max Planck Research Group ENSURE (European Security Revisited), thereby shedding light on security and defence in the European Union (EU), with a particular focus on the transformative impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Against this backdrop, the interview navigates the intriguing confluence of factors that are currently shaping the EU's law and policy response to the evolving and increasingly challenging geopolitical landscape. (Audio Production: www.citysoundstudio.de)

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : International Organizations as Orchestrators of Represented Constituencies: The Case of the Global Compact on RefugeesIntervenant(s) :Pr Terry Macdonald, University of MelbourneInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : La représentation démocratique dans l'Union européenne : démocratiser la démocratie ?Intervenant(s) :Pr Édouard Dubout, University Paris 2-Panthéon-AssasPr Dominique Ritleng, University of StrasbourgInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : No International Democratic Representation without Sovereignty—Lifting the Democratic Veil of Functionalist, Incorporation and Agency Theories of Representation by International Intervenant(s) :Pr José Luis Martí, Pompeu Fabra University, BarcelonaInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : CommentIntervenant(s) :Charles Girard, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3International organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : General ConclusionsIntervenant(s) :Pr Olivier de Frouville, University Paris-Panthéon-AssasInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : An IntroductionInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : Renouveau ou crépuscule de la notion de représentationIntervenant(s) :Pierre Rosanvallon, Collège de FranceInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : International Representation: Some General PrinciplesIntervenant(s) :Pr. Philip Pettit, University of Princeton and Australian National University, CanberraInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : Demoicratic Representation in International OrganizationsIntervenant(s)Pr Francis Cheneval, University of ZurichInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : Représentation démocratique et parlementarisation des organisations internationales : entre faux-amis et faux-semblantsIntervenant(s)Marie-Clotilde Runavot, University of Perpignan Via DomitiaInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : Organisations internationales et représentation du secteur privé : quels dilemmes démocratiques ?Intervenant(s) :Dr Marieke Louis, centre Marc Bloch, BerlinInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : The Ambivalent Logics of Business Representation in International OrganizationsIntervenant(s) :Pr Melissa J. Durkee, University of Georgia, AthensInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : Representation in and by International Organizations: A Case Study of the World Organization of Animal HealthIntervenant(s)Pr Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, HeidelbergInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

Samantha BessonCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Droit international des institutionsColloque - Democratic Representation in and by International Organizations : CommentIntervenant(s) :Yves Sintomer, université Paris 8 Vincenne-Saint-DenisInternational organizations (IOs) play a central role in contemporary international law-making: they institutionalize many of the processes through which international law is adopted today, be it through international law-making conferences, international courts or as IO secondary law. Yet, the question of democratic representation (by Member States and/or other public or private institutions or persons involved such as non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, trade unions, employer's associations, cities, regions or religious groups) in IOs, but also by IOs when they become members of other IOs or intervene as participants in other international law-making processes remains difficult, to say the least. It is one of the many dimensions of the deficit in democratic legitimacy of international law, but one that is rarely addressed as such today –although it has not always been the case and not with respect to all IOs equally. There are many reasons for the contemporary side-lining of the question of democratic representation both in international organizations' law and in international democratic theory. It suffices to mention two of them here: one is the vexed relationship between IOs and "politics" (not to mention democratic politics), and another lies in the (over)emphasis on civil society "participation" and other forms of "stakeholder" inclusion.The conference's aims will be to discuss those issues, but also to examine how IOs could be designed and organized under international law in the future so as to ensure sufficient democratic representation of all those they claim to bind legally, either directly or through their Member States. Various specialists of representation in both international organizations' law and democratic theory have been invited to explore those issues and many others at the conference. The conference is organized around three sets of issues: representation inside IOs (i.e. the different types of public and private representatives and their articulation in different IO deliberation and decision-making processes) (i), through IOs (i.e. the contribution of those forms of public and private representation within IOs to the institutionalization and organization of the relevant public and private representative institutions as such) (ii) and by IOs (i.e. when they become members of other IOs or participate in external international law-making processes) (iii).Speakers: Jochen von Bernstorff (University of Tübingen); Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris and University of Fribourg); Francis Cheneval (University of Zurich); Édouard Dubout (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Melissa J. Durkee (University of Georgia; Athens); Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Évelyne Lagrange (University Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne); Marieke Louis (Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin); Terry MacDonald (University of Melbourne); José Luis Martí (University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona); Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg); Philip Pettit (University of Princeton and Australian National University, Canberra); Dominique Ritleng (University of Strasbourg); Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris); Marie-Clotilde Runavot (University of Perpignan Via Domitia).Commentators: Olivier de Frouville (University Paris-Panthéon-Assas); Charles Girard (University Jean Moulin Lyon 3); Bernard Manin (EHESS, Paris); Yves Sintomer (University Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent un rôle central dans l'élaboration du droit international contemporain. Pourtant, la question de la représentation démocratique par les (représentants des) États membres et/ou les (représentants des) nombreuses autres institutions ou personnes publiques ou privées (comme les organisations non gouvernementales, les entreprises multinationales, les syndicats ou les villes) qui participent aux procédures de délibération et/ou de décision au sein des OI demeure redoutablement difficile. C'est encore davantage le cas de la représentation démocratique par les OI lorsque ces organisations deviennent membres d'autres OI ou interviennent en tant que participantes à part entière au sein d'autres processus multilatéraux d'élaboration du droit international. Les moyens d'assurer un contrôle populaire ultime et effectif sur ces représentants et les procédures auxquelles ils participent ne sont en effet que rarement donnés, comme d'ailleurs le respect de l'égalité politique entre les peuples du monde et entre leurs citoyens au sein de ces procédures.Ce manque de représentativité démocratique des procédures d'adoption du droit international dans les OI et des OI elles-mêmes est l'une des nombreuses dimensions du déficit plus large de légitimité démocratique du droit international. Malgré sa centralité, la question, plus technique, de la représentation démocratique dans et par les OI n'est que rarement abordée en tant que telle. Différents spécialistes du droit des organisations internationales et de la théorie démocratique ont été invités pour en débattre lors de ce colloque. Il s'agit d'établir ce que devrait recouvrir la notion de représentation démocratique internationale en elle-même et dans/par les OI, puis comment les OI pourraient être réorganisées en droit international de manière à assurer une représentation démocratique suffisante de tous ceux qu'elles prétendent lier juridiquement.Le colloque sera organisé autour de trois séries de questions : la représentation dans, à travers et par les organisations internationales. Il s'agira d'examiner, premièrement, par quelles institutions publiques et privées la représentation démocratique peut et doit se faire au sein des OI conçues comme des systèmes de représentation internationale multiple (i) ; deuxièmement, comment, ce faisant, le droit des OI peut et doit faciliter l'institutionnalisation de ces multiples représentants tant publics (p. ex. les villes) que privés (p. ex. les ONG) en premier lieu et avant leur articulation systématique en son sein (ii) ; et, enfin, comment la représentation par les OI dans d'autres OI ou d'autres procédures internationales peut et doit être organisée pour pouvoir être considérée comme démocratique (iii).Intervenantes et intervenants confirmésJochen von Bernstorff (Université de Tübingen) ; Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris) ; Francis Cheneval (Université de Zurich) ; Édouard Dubout (Université Paris 2-Panthéon-Assas) ; Melissa J. Durkee (Université de Géorgie) ; Jacob Katz Cogan (University of Cincinnati) ; Évelyne Lagrange (Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne) ; Marieke Louis (Centre Marc-Bloch, Berlin) ; Terry Macdonald (Université de Melbourne) ; José Luis Martí (Université Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) ; Anne Peters (Institut Max-Planck pour le droit public international et comparé, Heidelberg) ; Philip Pettit (Université de Princeton et Australian National University) ; Dominique Ritleng (Université de Strasbourg) ; Pierre Rosanvallon (Collège de France, Paris) ; Marie-Clotilde Runavot (Université de Perpignan).Commentateurs confirmésOlivier de Frouville (Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas) ; Charles Girard (Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3) ; Franck Petiteville (Sciences Po, Grenoble) ; Yves Sintomer (Université Paris 8-Vincenne-Saint-Denis).Le colloque aura lieu en anglais (à l'exception de quelques interventions en français), sans traduction simultanée.Le colloque bénéficie du soutien financier de la Fondation du Collège de France.

 En este episodio Edgardo Sobenes conversa con la Dra. Natalia Torres Zúñiga sobre la legitimad de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. A través del episodio la doctora nos habla sobre la narrativa de progreso y evolución de valores universales como la justicia, la paz, los derechos humanos, y la noción de legitimidad de Cortes internacionales. Luego se enfoca de manera crítica y sustentada en la Corte Interamericana y en el análisis de los enfoques jurídicos sobre su legitimidad. Se refiere al carácter supranacional de la Corte, su alegado efecto transformador en las democracias de América Latina, al derecho constitucional común (ius constitutionale commune), las democracias y los derechos humanos (igualdad), y nos brinda un análisis personal sobre la Corte y abogados como agentes de transformación, y mucho temas más.  Membresía del Podcast (https://www.hablemosdi.com/contenido-premium) Acerca de la Dra. Natalia Torres ZúñigaLibro: “The Inter American Court of Human Rights: The Legitimacy of International Courts and Tribunals”.Natalia Torres Zúñiga es investigadora postdoctoral en el Centro Noruego de Derechos Humanos, Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Oslo (Noruega) e investigadora visitante de Kent Law School (Canterbury, Reino Unido). Doctora en Derecho (Universidad de Oslo), Magister en Derecho Constitucional (Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo, España) y abogada por la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Ha sido investigadora visitante del Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg, Alemania) y visiting graduate student de Kent Law School (Canterbury, Reino Unido). Las áreas de trabajo de Natalia Torres son el derecho constitucional, el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, y la relación entre el derecho constitucional y economía política.Compra el libro en https://www.hablemosdi.com/libros Support the showAdquiere aquí el libro " Hablemos de Derecho Internacional Volumen I" https://www.hablemosdi.com/libros

Events in America like the 2021 United States Capitol Insurrection are not unique to America. Brazil also suffered from a similar crisis on Jan 8, 2023. The attack there, on all three branches of government in Brasilia, was largely the result of the former president's insistence the election had been rigged. His supporters believed him, and although he lost by almost 2 million votes, the crowds turned out to overturn the election, in much the same way Trump supporters did on Jan 6, 2021.I thought we should have a look at what's going on in Brazil and take a deeper dive into Brazil's constitution for a sense of what is driving the rise of populism in Brazil. The United States and Brazil enjoy broad political and economic relations. Brazil is the second most populus democracy in the Western Hemisphere, and the world's twelfth-largest economy. The United States is Brazil's second-largest trading partner, second only to China.It may surprise some of you to find out both the United States and Brazil are considered “flawed democracies," but there are differences. Whereas the promise of democracy in America is considered to be our birthright, Brazil has had to overcome a monarchy, as well as a dictatorship established by a military coup, which was supported by the United States and then president John F. Kennedy. That dictatorship lasted 21 years, until Feb 1, 1987 when a popular constituent assembly composed of elected representatives of the several political parties in Brazil, drafted a new democratic constitution, which was then formally ratified in 1988.  Juliano Zaiden Benvindo is Professor of Constitutional Law and Head of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Brasília. He is also a fellow at the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and Capes-Humboldt Senior Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany. His books include: On the Limits of Constitutional Adjudication; The Rule of Law in Brazil, The Legal Construction of Inequality; and, Constitutional Change and Transformation in Latin America, co-authored by Richard Albertand Carlos Bernal.

On this episode, we speak to Dr Saskia Stucki. Saskia is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany. Listeners may be familiar with her work in animal law and animal rights, though she also works on human rights, climate law, and environmental law. We discuss her paper ‘Animal Warfare Law and the Need for an Animal Law of Peace: A Comparative Reconstruction', which is forthcoming the American Journal of Comparative Law. This episode is brought to you by AASA, the Australasian Animal Studies Association, which you can join today. Membership is very affordable! It is also brought to you by the Animal Publics book series, at Sydney University Press. Keep your eyes open for their latest releae, which is Australian Animal Law: Context and Critique, by Elizabeth Ellis.

“Reverting from illiberal regimes back to a state of the Rule of Law will be a long and difficult process. Probably the more instruments there are the better in order to advance along that path.” In March 2022, before the Hungarian elections, our editor Oliver Garner sat down with Professor Armin von Bogdandy, director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and Honorary Professor for Public Law at the University in Frankfurt am Main. They discussed Professor von Bogdandy's recent article, published with Luke Dimitrios Spieker, on restoring the rule of law through criminal responsibility. Viktor Orban's election victory on 3 April means that such proposals are unlikely to be pursued in the near future in Hungary. However, the question of how to revert from illiberalism remains live, and more relevant than ever in the shadow of Russia's continuing invasion of Ukraine.

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Diplomatic Enlightenment: Spain, Europe, and the Age of Speculation (Brill, 2021) reconfigures the study of the origins of the Enlightenment in the Spanish Empire. Challenging dominant interpretations of the period, this book shows that early eighteenth-century Spanish authors turned to Enlightenment ideas to reinvent Spain's role in the European balance of power. And while international law grew to provide a legal framework that could safeguard peace, Spanish officials, diplomats, and authors, hardened by the failure of Spanish diplomacy, sought instead to regulate international relations by drawing on investment, profit, and self-interest. The book shows, on the basis of new archival research, that the Diplomatic Enlightenment sought to turn the Spanish Empire into a space for closer political cooperation with other European and non-European states and empires. Edward Jones Corredera is a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge in 2020. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie.

In their latest book, Nehru: The Debates that Defined India, Adeel Hussain and Tripurdaman Singh look at four men debated the first Prime Minister – Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Sardar Patel and Syama Prasad Mookerjee – and how theses exchanges came to shape India as we know it today. In this episode, they both join Sandip to discuss what they found out during their research, and what we can learn from these debates.Adeel Hussain is an assistant professor at Leiden University and a senior research affiliate at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. And Tripurdaman Singh is a British Academy postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London.

Francesca Iurlaro, Alexander von Humboldt postdoctoral researcher at Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, joins us to discuss jus gentium, the history of customary international law, Gentili, historiography and hope. Publications mentioned in the episode: Francesca Iurlaro, The Invention of Custom, Natural Law and the Law of Nations, ca. 1550-1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). Martti Koskenniemi, To the Uttermost Parts of the Earth, Legal Imagination and International Power 1300-1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). Francesca Iurlaro, “Disenchanting Gentili: Chapter 3: Italian Lessons. Ius Gentium and Reason of States”, European Journal of International Law 32, no. 3 (2021): 965–72. Francesca Iurlaro, “Between Authority and (In)Authenticity: How Literary Canons Shaped Jus Gentium”, Leiden Journal of International Law, forthcoming. Christopher N. Warren, Literature and the Law of Nations, 1580-1680 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Bernard Williams, Truth & Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

Lecture summary: International law is in constant movement, and any proper account of the international legal order needs to place this movement at the centre. “The course of international law needs to be understood if international law is to be understood,” says James Crawford in the opening of his general course at the Hague Academy in 2013. Yet rarely do we find focused and systematic attention to this ‘course of international law,’ to the ways in which international legal rules change, get reaffirmed or disappear. In this paper, we take a step towards a broader account of these dynamics, and we interrogate in particular the varying roles states play in them – largely from an empirical, not a doctrinal starting point. We pay particular attention to contexts in which states take secondary roles in change processes – roles of bystanders, catalysts, or spoilers – and we outline two core factors which, we believe, can help us understand much of the variation we observe. With this, we hope to dispel some of the shadows cast by doctrinal representations and make progress on the way to on the way to developing a richer, more empirically-oriented and more ‘social’ account of the paths of international law. The paper results from a research project on “The Paths of International Law”, funded by the European Research Council, and it is co-authored with Ezgi Yildiz, postdoctoral researcher at the Graduate Institute, Geneva. Dr Nico Krisch is a professor of international law at the Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies. His main research interests concern the legal structure of international organizations and global governance, the politics of international law, and the postnational legal order emerging at the intersection of domestic, transnational and international law. Prior to joining the The wInstitute, he was an ICREA research professor at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals and held faculty positions at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin and the Law Department of the London School of Economics. He was also a research fellow at Oxford University’s Merton College, at New York University School of Law and at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, as well as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School. He holds a PhD in law from the University of Heidelberg. His 2010 book, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (OUP), received the Certificate of Merit of the American Society of International Law. Dr Krisch is a member of the Council of the International Society of Public Law, and of the editorial/advisory boards of the European Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Dispute Settlement, and the London Review of International Law. In 2017, he was awarded a European Research Council Advanced Grant for a project on change and stability in international law; in 2019, he received the inaugural Max Planck-Cambride Prize for International Law.

Lecture summary: International law is in constant movement, and any proper account of the international legal order needs to place this movement at the centre. “The course of international law needs to be understood if international law is to be understood,” says James Crawford in the opening of his general course at the Hague Academy in 2013. Yet rarely do we find focused and systematic attention to this ‘course of international law,’ to the ways in which international legal rules change, get reaffirmed or disappear. In this paper, we take a step towards a broader account of these dynamics, and we interrogate in particular the varying roles states play in them – largely from an empirical, not a doctrinal starting point. We pay particular attention to contexts in which states take secondary roles in change processes – roles of bystanders, catalysts, or spoilers – and we outline two core factors which, we believe, can help us understand much of the variation we observe. With this, we hope to dispel some of the shadows cast by doctrinal representations and make progress on the way to on the way to developing a richer, more empirically-oriented and more ‘social’ account of the paths of international law. The paper results from a research project on “The Paths of International Law”, funded by the European Research Council, and it is co-authored with Ezgi Yildiz, postdoctoral researcher at the Graduate Institute, Geneva. Dr Nico Krisch is a professor of international law at the Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies. His main research interests concern the legal structure of international organizations and global governance, the politics of international law, and the postnational legal order emerging at the intersection of domestic, transnational and international law. Prior to joining the The wInstitute, he was an ICREA research professor at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals and held faculty positions at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin and the Law Department of the London School of Economics. He was also a research fellow at Oxford University’s Merton College, at New York University School of Law and at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, as well as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School. He holds a PhD in law from the University of Heidelberg. His 2010 book, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (OUP), received the Certificate of Merit of the American Society of International Law. Dr Krisch is a member of the Council of the International Society of Public Law, and of the editorial/advisory boards of the European Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Dispute Settlement, and the London Review of International Law. In 2017, he was awarded a European Research Council Advanced Grant for a project on change and stability in international law; in 2019, he received the inaugural Max Planck-Cambride Prize for International Law.

Julia Emtseva, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany, gives a talk for the Public International Law seminar series. Julia Emtseva is a research fellow and a PhD candidate at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany. Julia obtained her LL.M. in International Human Rights Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School, M.A. in Human Rights and Democratization in the Global Campus of Human Rights Regional Program in the Caucasus, and LL.B. at the American University of Central Asia (AUCA). Julia Emtseva obtained her qualification as a lawyer in Kyrgyzstan and before starting her PhD, she interned at different national courts, including the Constitutional Chamber of the Kyrgyz Republic, and worked as a teaching and research assistant at the law faculty of the AUCA, a human rights observer with the American Bar Association as well as in different NGOs, including the National Committee of the Red Cross in Kyiv and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin.

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie.

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The phrase, “state of nature”, has been used over centuries to describe the uncultivated state of lands and animals, nudity, innocence, heaven and hell, interstate relations, and the locus of pre- and supra-political rights, such as the right to resistance, to property, to create and leave polities, and the freedom of religion, speech, and opinion, which may be reactivated or reprioritised when the polity and its laws fail. Combining intellectual history with current concerns, Mark Somos and Anne Peters's book The State of Nature: Histories of an Idea (Brill, 2021) together fourteen essays on the past, present and possible future applications of the legal fiction known as the state of nature. Mark Somos, Ph.D. (2007 Harvard, 2014 Leiden), holds the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg position. He wrote Secularisation and the Leiden Circle (Brill, 2011) and American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761–1775 (Oxford, 2019). Anne Peters, Ph.D. (1994 Freiburg), is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, a Professor at Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin, and Basel, and L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan. Alexandra Ortolja-Baird is Lecturer in Digital History and Culture at the University of Portsmouth. She tweets at @timetravelallie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

En este episodio Edgardo Sobenes conversa con Prof. Dr. Alfonso J. Iglesias Velasco sobre las violaciones del derecho internacional por parte de las operaciones de paz de la ONU. El Profesor inicia con una introducción a la historia y al marco jurídico que regula las operaciones de paz de la ONU. Nos comenta sobre la evolución histórica de los objetivos de las operaciones de paz, y los cambios sustanciales de los mandatos de las tropas después de la guerra fría. Posteriormente, se enfoca en las graves violaciones del derecho internacional humanitario y los derechos humanos cometidos por integrantes de los cascos azules, en especial la explotación sexual y los abusos sexuales. Nos conversa sobre el derecho internacional relevante, la responsabilidad penal individual, y las jurisdicciones competentes.El Profesor habla sobre la actuación y medidas adoptadas por las Naciones Unidas y los Estados frente a la perpetración de crímenes por parte de los miembros de los cuerpos de paz. Se refiere a los mecanismos de investigación y denuncia de las violaciones de normas internacionales, y a los mecanismos disponibles para garantizar la reparación de las víctimas. Antes de finalizar el episodio, se refiere al proceso de ingreso de cascos azules en territorios soberanos, a las reformas internas que han sido adoptadas por los algunos países, y al desarrollo temporal de las operaciones de paz.Membresía del Podcast  https://www.hablemosdi.com/contenido-premiumLibros:·       Las operaciones de mantenimiento de la paz: Concepto, evolución histórica y características (1948-2002)·       Los problemas de mantenimiento internacional de la paz Acerca del Dr. Prof. Dr. Alfonso J. Iglesias VelascoProfesor Titular de Derecho Internacional Público en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Realizó su tesis doctoral sobre las operaciones de mantenimiento de la paz bajo la dirección del Profesor Antonio Remiro Brotóns, y con ella consiguió el “Premio Defensa” del año 2002 concedido por el Ministerio de Defensa. Ha realizado estancias de investigación en diversas universidades (Columbia University, New York University, Universidad de Oxford), y en centros de investigación de reconocido prestigio (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law en Heidelberg, y la Biblioteca “Dag Hammarskjold” de Naciones Unidas). Además de haber escrito numerosos artículos de investigación y haber participado en libros colectivos, es autor de siete monografías sobre diversas materias, como el proceso de paz en Palestina, el mantenimiento internacional de la paz, la seguridad regional en Europa, y la aplicación del Derecho Internacional por los jueces estatales. Es el coordinador de la Cátedra UNESCO de Cultura de Paz y Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.  Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/hablemosDI)

Human dignity is the key term that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights placed at the center of legal discourse on a global level. In 1949, Germany incorporated the concept of human dignity in its Basic law. Human Dignity in Context (Nomos/Hart, 2018), edited by Dieter Grimm, Alexandra Kemmerer, and Christoph Möllers, provides a contextual analysis of human dignity, exploring its legal and political implications and reflecting current debates on human dignity in multiple disciplinary fields. In our interview, Alexandra and myself speak about the definition, benefits and challenges of the term, about Covid 19 as a case study of how we can use Human Dignity to make decisions about the contradicts needs and wishes of communities and people during the pandemic, we speak about the debate around human dignity and technology and more. Alexandra Kemmerer is senior research fellow and academic coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Berlin. Dr. Yakir Englander is the National Director of Leadership programs at the Israeli-American Council. He also teaches at the AJR. He can be reached at: Yakir1212englander@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Human dignity is the key term that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights placed at the center of legal discourse on a global level. In 1949, Germany incorporated the concept of human dignity in its Basic law. Human Dignity in Context (Nomos/Hart, 2018), edited by Dieter Grimm, Alexandra Kemmerer, and Christoph Möllers, provides a contextual analysis of human dignity, exploring its legal and political implications and reflecting current debates on human dignity in multiple disciplinary fields. In our interview, Alexandra and myself speak about the definition, benefits and challenges of the term, about Covid 19 as a case study of how we can use Human Dignity to make decisions about the contradicts needs and wishes of communities and people during the pandemic, we speak about the debate around human dignity and technology and more. Alexandra Kemmerer is senior research fellow and academic coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Berlin. Dr. Yakir Englander is the National Director of Leadership programs at the Israeli-American Council. He also teaches at the AJR. He can be reached at: Yakir1212englander@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Human dignity is the key term that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights placed at the center of legal discourse on a global level. In 1949, Germany incorporated the concept of human dignity in its Basic law. Human Dignity in Context (Nomos/Hart, 2018), edited by Dieter Grimm, Alexandra Kemmerer, and Christoph Möllers, provides a contextual analysis of human dignity, exploring its legal and political implications and reflecting current debates on human dignity in multiple disciplinary fields. In our interview, Alexandra and myself speak about the definition, benefits and challenges of the term, about Covid 19 as a case study of how we can use Human Dignity to make decisions about the contradicts needs and wishes of communities and people during the pandemic, we speak about the debate around human dignity and technology and more. Alexandra Kemmerer is senior research fellow and academic coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Berlin. Dr. Yakir Englander is the National Director of Leadership programs at the Israeli-American Council. He also teaches at the AJR. He can be reached at: Yakir1212englander@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Human dignity is the key term that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights placed at the center of legal discourse on a global level. In 1949, Germany incorporated the concept of human dignity in its Basic law. Human Dignity in Context (Nomos/Hart, 2018), edited by Dieter Grimm, Alexandra Kemmerer, and Christoph Möllers, provides a contextual analysis of human dignity, exploring its legal and political implications and reflecting current debates on human dignity in multiple disciplinary fields. In our interview, Alexandra and myself speak about the definition, benefits and challenges of the term, about Covid 19 as a case study of how we can use Human Dignity to make decisions about the contradicts needs and wishes of communities and people during the pandemic, we speak about the debate around human dignity and technology and more. Alexandra Kemmerer is senior research fellow and academic coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Berlin. Dr. Yakir Englander is the National Director of Leadership programs at the Israeli-American Council. He also teaches at the AJR. He can be reached at: Yakir1212englander@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Human dignity is the key term that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights placed at the center of legal discourse on a global level. In 1949, Germany incorporated the concept of human dignity in its Basic law. Human Dignity in Context (Nomos/Hart, 2018), edited by Dieter Grimm, Alexandra Kemmerer, and Christoph Möllers, provides a contextual analysis of human dignity, exploring its legal and political implications and reflecting current debates on human dignity in multiple disciplinary fields. In our interview, Alexandra and myself speak about the definition, benefits and challenges of the term, about Covid 19 as a case study of how we can use Human Dignity to make decisions about the contradicts needs and wishes of communities and people during the pandemic, we speak about the debate around human dignity and technology and more. Alexandra Kemmerer is senior research fellow and academic coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Berlin. Dr. Yakir Englander is the National Director of Leadership programs at the Israeli-American Council. He also teaches at the AJR. He can be reached at: Yakir1212englander@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Human dignity is the key term that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights placed at the center of legal discourse on a global level. In 1949, Germany incorporated the concept of human dignity in its Basic law. Human Dignity in Context (Nomos/Hart, 2018), edited by Dieter Grimm, Alexandra Kemmerer, and Christoph Möllers, provides a contextual analysis of human dignity, exploring its legal and political implications and reflecting current debates on human dignity in multiple disciplinary fields. In our interview, Alexandra and myself speak about the definition, benefits and challenges of the term, about Covid 19 as a case study of how we can use Human Dignity to make decisions about the contradicts needs and wishes of communities and people during the pandemic, we speak about the debate around human dignity and technology and more. Alexandra Kemmerer is senior research fellow and academic coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Berlin. Dr. Yakir Englander is the National Director of Leadership programs at the Israeli-American Council. He also teaches at the AJR. He can be reached at: Yakir1212englander@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country' of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together'. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here'. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature' and ‘novelty' of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive' state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country’ of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together’. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here’. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature’ and ‘novelty’ of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive’ state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country’ of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together’. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here’. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature’ and ‘novelty’ of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive’ state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country’ of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together’. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here’. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature’ and ‘novelty’ of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive’ state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country’ of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together’. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here’. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature’ and ‘novelty’ of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive’ state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country’ of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together’. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here’. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature’ and ‘novelty’ of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive’ state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Federalist no. 2, John Jay considered the ‘wide spreading country' of the American republic. It was, he argued, as if the land itself was fashioned by the hand of Providence, which ‘in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together'. When we think of early American political thought, we tend to overlook the powerful influence of the natural environment on the formation of settlement in both theory and practice. Seminal studies of the ideological origins of the American Revolution approached colonial political ideas as largely derivative from the deep wells of Anglophone ideas, and framed largely in opposition to Britain. Yet, as Jefferson reminded his British audience in the Declaration of Independence, it was important to consider the ‘circumstances of our emigration and settlement here'. Or, as a writer in 1620s Virginia explained, colonial law was a product of the ‘nature' and ‘novelty' of the place. In American States of Nature: The Origins of Independence, 1761-1775 (Oxford UP, 2019), Mark Somos recovers a powerful and coherent theme in colonial political thought, a ‘constitutive' state of nature that identified the American colonies that would declare independence as a natural community in a ‘state of nature viewed as irreducibly and unexchangeably American'.  Mark Somos holds the Heisenberg Position at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.  Charles Prior is Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Hull, where he co-leads the Treatied Spaces Research Cluster. His latest publication is Settlers in Indian Country. 

Claudia speaks to Saskia Stucki, who sees overlaps between International Humanitarian Law and Animal Welfare Law as providing fertile ground for legal conceptual development. Saskia Stucki believes ‘Animal Warfare Law' offers a way forward for considering how animal welfare and animal rights could better complement one another. Date recorded: 6 May 2020Guest: Saskia Stucki is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany. In 2018/2019, she was a visiting researcher at the Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Program, where she worked on her two-year postdoctoral research project “Trilogy on a Legal Theory of Animal Rights” (funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation). She studied law at the University of Basel, Switzerland, where she also obtained her doctoral degree in 2015. The resulting book on “Fundamental Rights for Animals” (2016) won four awards, among other the biennial award of the Swiss Association for the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Her research interests include animal law and ethics, animal personhood and rights, legal animal studies and comparative animal welfare law, legal theory, human rights philosophy, international humanitarian law, and environmental law. You can find out more about Saskia and her work here. Host: Claudia Hirtenfelder is a PhD Candidate in Geography and Planning at Queen's University and is currently undertaking her own research project that looks at the historical relationships between animals and cities. Contact Claudia via email (17ch38@queensu.ca) or follow her on Twitter (@ClaudiaFTowne).Featured readings:  The Humanization of Humanitarian Law by Theodor Meron; The War Against Animals by Dinesh Wadiwel; and Beyond Animal Welfare/Warfare Law: Humanizing the war on animals and the need for complementary animal rights by Saskia Stucki (forthcoming)Bed Music created by Gordon Clarke (Instagram: @_con_sol_)Podcast Logo created by Jeremy John (Website)Sponsored by Animals in Philosophy, Politics, Law and Ethics – A.P.P.L.E (Website) Part of iROAR, an Animals Podcasting Network and the CFRC Podcast Network

Oceans are increasingly under pressure; be it for the multiplication and diversification of economic activities performed at sea, for the consequences of climate change, or for the deterioration of their environmental health. Several international bodies and a plethora of international instruments regulate, influence and shape what is happening in the oceans. Moreover, actors at different levels of governance participate in what it is commonly called ocean governance. But what is ocean governance? Which are the different actors and instruments involved? How do they interact in dealing with ocean affairs? Those are some of the questions that the Sustainable Ocean project (ERC grant agreement No 639070) deals with in order to answer the overarching research question: how can the law contribute to the sustainable use of the ocean and strike a balance between competing interests at sea? Regime interaction is here analysed and used as a legal modus operandi, as an existing legal behaviour. We do not engage with the debate whether regime interaction is inherently beneficial or detrimental to the international legal order. Similarly, the research project adopts a concept of ocean governance which is mainly descriptive of processes, instruments and actors involved in oceans affairs and management. In this presentation, I would like to present and discuss the partial results of our research which stem from a workshop we organised in April 2019 on ‘Regime Interaction in Ocean Governance: Problems, theories and methods’. The partial results can be synthesised in the this diagram that identifies three categories of interaction (interactive form; interactive substance; interactive process) and that proposes a lens through which analyse and handle instances of interaction. Seline Trevisanut (PhD, Milan; MA, Paris I) is Professor on International Law and Sustainability at Utrecht University and currently principal investigator of the ERC Starting Grant Project ‘Sustainable Ocean’ (2015-2020). Before joining Utrecht in 2012, she taught courses and conducted research at Columbia University, at the European University Institute, at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, at the National University of Singapore and at UC Berkeley. Her publications include inter alia edited volumes on Foreign Investment, International Law and Common Concerns (Routledge 2014), and on Energy from the Sea: An International Law Perspective on Ocean Energy (Brill 2015), and a forthcoming monograph on The International Law of Offshore Installations: Through Fragmentation Towards Better Governance (Cambridge University Press 2019).