22.2
Winter
2022

Print
Article
22.2
The Persistent Objector Doctrine: Identifying Contradictions
Shelly Aviv Yeini
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Hauser Global Fellows Program at NYU School of Law; Post-Doctoral Fellow, Minerva Center for the Rule of Law Under Extreme Conditions, Faculty of Law and Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa.

I thank Itamar Mann and Eliav Lieblich for their valuable comments. I have also benefited from comments by participants of the Young Researchers Workshop at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, University of Haifa.

The persistent objector doctrine (POD) in international law provides that a rule of customary international law (CIL) will not oblige a state that has persistently objected to the development of the rule. The doctrine requires that the objection be “persistent” and “consistent” and that it not be contradictory. This Article offers a novel understanding of “contradiction.”

Print
Article
22.2
Political Stare Decisis
Oren Tamir
Graduate Fellow & SJD Candidate, Harvard Law School.

Many thanks to Ash Ahmed, Nick Barber, Omri Ben-Zvi, Josh Braver, Elena Chachko, Lawrence David, Ros Dixon, Oran Doyle, Richard Fallon, Jon Gould, Tom Ginsburg, Daphna Gluck, Tara Leigh Grove, Vicki Jackson, Larry Lessig, Asaf Lubin, Nadiv Mordechai, Gali Racabi, Richard Re, Daphna Renan, Fred Schauer, Rafi Stern, Cass Sunstein, and Mark Tushnet for helpful comments and conversations on previous drafts. Deep thanks as well to the devoted editorial team of the Chicago Journal of International Law for their tireless work on this piece. The usual disclaimers apply.

This Article fills a gap in existing scholarship by offering a comprehensive explanatory and functional theory of the role of the past as a constraint in domestic and global politics, or, in short, a theory of political stare decisis.

Print
Comment
22.2
Searching for Justice for Australia’s Stolen Generations
Keila Mayberry
J.D. Candidate, 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

The author wishes to thank the entire Chicago Journal of International Law editorial staff for their extensive review, and Professor Tom Ginsburg for his advisement.

This Comment argues that a claim brought on behalf of Australia's "Stolen Generations" at the International Court of Justice could correct the Court’s jurisprudential errors in its application of the Genocide Convention and enable the Stolen Generations to achieve justice.

Print
Article
22.2
The Global Rise of International Commercial Courts: Typology and Power Dynamics
Weixia Gu
Weixia Gu is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong.

Please send direct correspondence to Weixia Gu, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong; Email: guweixia@hku.hk. Research leading to this paper is funded by the Hong Kong Government Research Grants Council General Research Fund (HKU 17606021; 17609419; 17602218) and University of Hong Kong Outstanding Young Researcher Award Scheme. The paper benefited from presentation and discussion at Oxford Law Faculty, Cambridge Law Faculty, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, NYU Law School, University of Lausanne, Renmin University, Fudan University, IV Oxford Symposium on Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, 2019 American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, 2020 Oxford-HILJ-YJIL “China and International Legal Ordering” Virtual Symposium and 2021 BIICL “Taking Stock: International Commercial Courts in Europe and Asia” Conference. We thank Matthew Erie and Jarrod Wong for constructive comments on earlier drafts.

Jacky Tam
Jacky Tam is Trainee Solicitor at Baker McKenzie’s Hong Kong Office.

This Article offers a unique typological framework to study the evolution of International Commercial Courts (ICCs). It argues that the most apt characterization of the relevant power dynamics is “co-opetition,” a combination of “cooperation/collaboration/complementarity” and “competition.”

Print
Article
22.2
Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture
Tom Dannenbaum

The author is grateful for conversations on this and earlier working papers from which it was derived at the Hauser Colloquium at New York University School of Law, the Junior International Law Scholars Association Workshop at Cornell Law School, and the ICC Scholars Forum, hosted virtually by Leiden University. Thanks also to the editors of the Chicago Journal of International Law for their outstanding work. All errors are the responsibility of the author.

Drawing on the moral philosophy of torture, this Article argues that siege starvation is a war crime of societal torture. Recognizing this redefines the meaning and place of the crime in the framework of international criminal law.

Print
Comment
22.2
UNHRC Resolution 26/9: Is a New International “Red Card” Enough to Keep FIFA and Others Accountable?
Griffin A. Clark
J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank CJIL for the opportunity to publish this Comment. I would also like to thank my faculty advisor, Professor Chilton, for his ideas and insights during the development of this Comment.

Using U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 26/9 and its proposed legally binding instrument as a new avenue for transnational corporate accountability, this Comment examines FIFA’s liability for human rights violations in Qatar connected to the World Cup.

Volumes