In this issue, we continue EJIL’s year-long symposium ‘Re-Theorizing International Organizations Law’ with Yifeng Chen’s article on the development of the law of international organizations in China. Chen focuses on a figure relatively unknown to Western audiences, Professor Rao Geping, and shows how Rao’s communitarian ideas about the law coalesced with China’s continuous economic reform and deeper integration into the international system.
The Articles section opens with a contribution by Stewart Manley, Pardis Moslemzadeh Tehrani, and Rajah Rasiah on the non-use of African Law by the International Criminal Court. The authors argue that the ICC should be more open to citing materials from Africa and other countries of the Global South, especially, but not only, when it identifies general principles. In the next article, Helga Molbæk-Steensig and Alexandre Quemy ask what effects non-renewable terms have on the international judiciary’s independence and impartiality. The authors suggest that, following the introduction of non-renewable terms at the European Court of Human Rights in 2010, judges write more individual opinions overall, criticize their appointing state more often, and defend it on fewer occasions.The Articles section concludes with a contribution by Gus Waschefort, who seeks to challenge the conventional wisdom that the arbitrariness of loss of life during the conduct of hostilities is always to be determined by reference to international humanitarian law.
Roaming Charges in this issue challenges conventional wisdom regarding Beauty Salons.
The issue continues with an EJIL: Debate!, which features two Replies to Stephen Humphreys’ article ‘Against Future Generations’, published in issue 33:4 (2022), and a Rejoinder by Humphreys. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Ayan Garg, and Shubhangi Agarwalla agree with the main points raised by Humphreys, but reject his conclusion that future generations discourse should be dismissed altogether. For his part, Peter Lawrence argues that Humphreys’ take underappreciates developing countries’ deep concern for their own future generations as well as for addressing poverty in the present. Lawrence also remains sceptical about the idea that intergenerational justice cannot be channelled into workable legal rules, suggesting that even today climate litigation often goes beyond the present-day framings of classic human rights law. Stephen Humphreys responds in his Rejoinder. Pivoting on the mobilization of the concept by both rich and poor countries, Humphreys highlights the ways in which, despite its rhetorical appeal, the category of future generations can decay into farce.
In the Critical Review of Governance section, Lena Riecke focuses on the concept of ‘dual-use’ in the 2021 EU Dual-use Regulation. She explains that the duality drawn by this concept not only controls but enables trade of technologies and argues that this duality is flawed in the spyware context and undermines human rights safeguards.
The Last Page closes the issue with a poem by Else Lasker-Schüler (1869-1945), considered by many to be the greatest of all German women poets and one of the finest Jewish poets.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
