The IGLP Collaborative Research Grant Program is designed to provide modest funding to small groups of young scholars who are seeking to carry out substantive research on projects related to the core research mission of the IGLP.

Through this Research Grants Program, we seek to deepen the network of collaboration among our HLS Graduate Students, IGLP Workshop alumni, and IGLP faculty. IGLP Collaborative Research Grants are designed for small teams of two or more scholars and typically range from $500 – $5000 per group, per year. Applications are open to current Harvard Law School students and IGLP Workshop Alumni. Preference is given to groups whose ideas or projects emerged out of the IGLP’s Annual Workshop on Global Law and Economic Policy.

Applications from groups seeking to carry out collaborative research are reviewed three times per year.  Applications should include a description (1-3 pages or 500-1500 words) of the research proposal, a budget for the project, and the curriculum vitae for each scholar affiliated with the project.

Applications from groups seeking to carry out collaborative research are reviewed three times per year. The application deadlines are April 1, July 1 and November 1.

Applications should include a description (1-3 pages or 500-1500 words) of the research proposal, a budget for the project, and the curriculum vitae for each scholar affiliated with the project. Please click here to submit your application for the next round of IGLP Collaborative Grants. If you have any questions, please send an email to [email protected]

Past Collaborative Research Grants have included:

Criminal Legal Structures

Convener: Diane Bernard (Belgium) Associate Research & Visiting Professor, Université St-Louis (Brussels), 2014 Workshop Participant

Contributors: Ioannis Kalpouzos (Greece) Lecturer in Law, The City Law School, City University, 2014 Workshop Participant; Itamar Mann (Israel) Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law, 2014 Workshop Participant; Anne-Charlotte Martineau (France), Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute; Immi Tallgren (Finland), Post Doctoral Fellow, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law; Damien Scalia (Switzerland), Research Fellow, Geneva University

Description: Law, and criminal law in particular, seems to be perceived as the best, unavoidable, a 2nd automatic reaction to mass violence, at a collective and institutional level. While some perceptive critical work on some issues of international criminal law exists, we plan to advance this by focusing on certain foundational issues.

We would like to question the priority and ‘obviousness’ of (criminal) law. This paradigm is dominant in both practice and theory of criminal law, human rights, public international and humanitarian law. Law is perceived as the answer, and is presented in a variety of forms (norms, agreements, institutions), even irrespective of its actual impact. Even ‘transitional justice’ ultimately enters the legal lexicon and logic; most alternatives (as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, or mediation in general) seem to participate in a penal rationality, being no true ‘alternatives’. Law pairs itself to violence, as its answer. Our project aims at elaborating on this issue: (why) is law, and criminal law in particular, perceived as an automatic, legitimate, and exclusive answer to violence? (Why) is law intrinsically, or factually, better as a reaction to violence than, for example, the promotion of economic development?

Food and Finance

Convener: Tomaso Ferrando (Italy), Resident Fellow, Harvard IGLP & PhD Student, Sciences Po Law School, 2012 Workshop Participant, 2015 Workshop Participant

Contributors: Luigi Russi (Italy), Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Azim Premji University; Tania Salerno (Canada), PhD researcher and lecturer at the Anthropology and Sociology Department, University of Amsterdam; Anne Saab (The Netherlands), PhD researcher and part-time teacher, LSE, 2015 Workshop Participant; Anna Chadwick (UK), PhD researcher, LSE, 2015 Workshop Participant

Description: The idea behind the creation of the Food and Finance collaborative research group originates from our perceived need to connect individuals, academics, institutions, organizations, movements and practitioners whose work is directly or indirectly related to food, and particularly the increasing financialization of the food chain.

We are a group of doctoral students performing research in different disciplines and in different universities. Having met each through conferences and informal networking, we realized that many of us are interested in similar areas of research, but there are few – if any – platforms to share and discuss interdisciplinary research related to food and finance.

To give some examples of what we would like to investigate in the future months, we are interested in looking at situations which may be as distant as the use of financial intermediaries to finance agricultural development in peripheral countries (finance development and agricultural chain), the intervention of financial actors in the process of research, production and distribution of genetically modified seeds, and the increasing financialization of food producers.

The Co-production of Weapons and Law

Convener: Ioannis Kalpouzos (Greece) Lecturer in Law, The City Law School, City University, 2014 Workshop Participant

Contributors: Gearoid O’Cuinn (Ireland), Academic Fellow, Lancaster University School of Law, 2014 Workshop Participant; Itamar Mann (Israel) (Israel) Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law, 2014 Workshop Participant; Heidi Matthews (Canada), Residential Fellow, Institute for Global Law & Policy, Harvard Law School, 2011 Pro-Seminar Participant, 2012 IGLP Docent, 2013 IGLP Docent; Delphine Dogot (Belgium) Ph.D Candidate, Sciences Po Law School, 2012 Workshop Participant

Description: The “cultural lag” argument, originally introduced by sociologist William Ogburn, is the claim that developments in technology somehow precede cultural developments.  This ostensibly creates periods of crisis, in which culture must adjust or “catch up” with faster material developments. A particular genre of this argument has in recent years emerged everywhere in the context of the laws of war. New military technologies, so goes the story, require new doctrinal developments that will somehow close a normative gap that threatens to render law obsolete or indeed irrelevant. This research group aims to examine historically and theoretically the implicit assumptions of this “legal lag” argument, and the kinds of political agendas it advances.  We hope to at least temporarily replace constant conversations about questions like how drones require new laws, by their converse. For example, how do drones illuminate and help expose fundamental characteristics of the legal conditions that allowed them to emerge in the first place?

Past IGLP Alumni Collaborative Research Initiatives have included:

Global Art Law and Cultural Property: Productions of Value

Convener:  Vivek Kanwar  (United States) Associate Professor of Law, Jindal Global Law School

Contributors:  Deval Desai (United Kingdom) S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2010, 2012, 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant; Yugank Goyal (India) Ph.D. Candidate, University of Hamburg, 2012 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2014 IGLP Docent; Priya Gupta (United States) Jindal Global Law School, 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2012 IGLP Docent; Richard Lehun (Canada) Teaching Fellow, McGill University, 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2014 IGLP Docent; Lucas Lixinski (Brazil) Lecturer in Law, University of New South Wales, 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2012 & 2013 IGLP Docent; James Parker (United Kingdom) Lecturer in Law, Melbourne Law School, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Jonathan Walz (United States) Research Associate, The Field Museum, Rollins College, Department of Anthropology.

Description: If the art market were a country, it would be the 67th biggest country in the world by GDP, and yet there is little understanding of the production of value in art practice and its legal regulation. This project will explore the potential for new methodologies to contribute to art law: from critical legal studies, science and technology studies, law and economics, archaeology, legal aesthetics, to value-chain analyses.  The group aims to generate a productive discussion and publication from a series of initial projects:

  • Vivek Kanwar, “Law and the Contingency of Contemporary Art Objects: Heterodox Approaches to Questions of “Value” in Transnational Markets”
  • Lucas Lixinski, “A Critique of Heritage Regimes: Excluding Economics from the Equation”
  • Richard Lehun, “Private Actors and Fiduciary Duties in the Transnational Art Market”
  • Yugank Goyal, “Art Markets and the Indeterminacy of an Equilibrium Price: Empirical and Historical Responses and the Problem of Oligopoly”
  • James Parker, “Law, Sound and the International (Institute for International Law and the Humanities) IGLP: Participant at the 2013 workshop. “War by Art: Art and Media Practices and the Techniques of War”
  • Jonathan Walz, “Modern Law and the Valuation of Ancestors in Art and Archeology”
  • Deval Desai, “Policy As Theatre: The Legal and Policy Aesthetics of Development Work”

Indicators as Political Spaces

Convener:  Rene Urena (Colombia) Associate Professor, Universidad de Los Andes, 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2014 IGLP Docent

Contributors: Dawood Ahmed (United Kingdom) JSD Student, University of Chicago, 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Siobhan Airey (Ireland) Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Lina Buchely (Colombia) S.J.D. Candidate, Universidad de Los Andes, 2010 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant; Marie Guimezanes (France) Researcher, Toulouse 1 Capitole University, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Marta Infantino (Italy) Post Doctoral Fellow, University of Trieste, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant Jothie Rajah (Singapore) Research Professor, American Bar Foundation, 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2014 IGLP Docent; Michael Riegner (Germany) LL.M. Candidate, New York University School of Law, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant.

Description: Indicators came into prominence as a tool of global governance in the early 1990s, and by 2014, it is clear that they are here to stay; reshaping governance, policy, and the parameters of law. Building on the work done at the 2013 and 2014 Doha Workshops, and the 2013 IGLP Conference, this Research Group seeks to explore the way in which indicators are used to perpetuate, shift, or resist power relations, and to achieve or prevent social change.   Peacekeeping, constitutions, and human rights are among the complex phenomena that are now being measured and ranked. This measuring and ranking takes place all over the world, at many levels, involving many actors – NGOs, corporations, nations, international organizations, and grassroots groups are engaged in this pervasive mode of governance and knowledge creation.   This group project aims to explore the new political spaces that are opened by quantitative technologies of governance. The problem is not only whether an indicator is a simplification or not — a wider approach is necessary. Is global power experienced differently if it is exercised through an indicator? Are there new sites of contestation that appear as this technology is used? How do social movements (both grass-root and elite-based) react to the use of indicators? Do they always resist indicators as an imposition of the North, or is there a process of appropriation or strategic transformation for local needs? What voices, values, and stories are included and excluded by indicators? Does the emphasis on numbers take attention away from context, history, and questions of power? These questions will be explored through case studies by an international, interdisciplinary group of early career scholars:

  • Dawood Ahmed, “Indicators and Islamic Constitutions”
  • Siobhan Airey, “Indicators and the Right to Development”
  • Lina Bucheli, “Grass-root Indicators as a Space of Resistance”
  • Marta Infantino, “Human Rights Indicators”
  • Michael Riegner, “Doing Business in the Arab World”: Measuring Law and Economic Development in Islamic Countries
  • Marie Guimezanes, “Private Indicators of Development Aid”
  • Jothie Rajah, “Indicators, the Military, and the Rule of Law”
  • Rene Uruena, “Indicators and the Emergence of Scientific Common Sense in Developmental Policy”

International Legal Structuralism

Convener:  Justin Desautels-Stein (United States) Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School, 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2012 IGLP Pro Seminar Convener

Contributors: Paulo Barrozo (United States) Assistant Professor, Boston College Law School; Arnulf Becker (Chile) Visiting Faculty, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, 2011 IGLP Pro Seminar Convener; Akbar Rasulov (Uzbekistan) Lecturer in Public International Law, University of Glasgow, 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant.

Description:This research initiative will re-examine on the works of international legal scholarship influenced by “structuralism” from the 1980s (David Kennedy’s International Legal Structures and Martti Koskenniemi’s From Apology to Utopia) forward.  The group will meet in NYU in the fall of 2014 to explore the current application of legal structuralism in international legal scholarship, now a generation later.  The group aims to produce an edited volume for publication.

Legal Education on International Public Law: Rethinking the Latin American Experience

Convener:  Paola Acosta (Colombia) Ph.D. Candidate, Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant

Contributors: Laura Betancur (Colombia) Ph.D. Candidate, Universidad de Los Andes, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Enrique Prieto Rios (Colombia)  Ph.D. Candidate, Birkbeck, University of London, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Jimena Sierra (Colombia)   Ph.D. Student, Universidad del Rosario.

Description: The aim of this project is to build up a Working Academic Platform in Latin America for the promotion of interdisciplinary and critical teaching of International Public Law.  The platform will permit Latin-American academics to share teaching and research experiences, and rethink their approach of teaching and researching International Public Law. Although Latin America has long been a source of intellectual and political innovation in international law, the contemporary scholarly tradition is often characterized by a dogmatic form of teaching, based on a reproduction of a Western approach towards the field. The project emerged from participation in the 2014 Doha Workshop, at which scholars from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru shared their teaching and research experiences and identified common problems. The group has continued the discussion virtually, exchanging documents and ideas.   They propose now to render their collaboration concrete through the establishment of a working platform, the gathering of information about legal education in the field, the organization of a conference and develop a set of common conclusions and recommendations. Their hope is to generate a regional movement towards the rethinking of teaching and researching of international public law.

Locating Nature: Making and Unmaking International Law

Convener:  Usha Natarajan (Australia) Assistant Professor, The American University in Cairo, 2010 & 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2013 & 2014 IGLP Docent

Contributors: Nadia Ahmad (United States) Sustainable Development Strategies Group, 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant; Saptarishi Bandopadhyay (India) S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School; Aurélien Bouayad (France) Ph.D. Candidate, Sciences Po Law School;Julia Dehm (Australia) Ph.D. Candidate, Melbourne Law School, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Hélène Mayrand (Canada) Assistant Professor of Law, University of Sherbrooke, 2011 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Roger Merino Acuña (Peru) Ph.D. Candidate, University of Bath; 2013 IGLP Workshop Participant; Areli Valencia (Peru) Gordan F. Henderson Post-Doctoral Fellow, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, 2014 IGLP Workshop Participant; Karolina Zurek (Poland) Senior Researcher in Law, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, 2010 IGLP Workshop Participant, 2012 & 2013 IGLP Docent.

Description: This project aims to locate nature as a central disciplinary concept in the international legal field, alongside sovereignty, jurisdiction, trade or development.   The project steps beyond “international environmental law,” urging the unmaking and reformulation of central disciplinary tenets to encapsulate healthier understandings of nature. The project began at IGLP in 2011 and led to a symposium issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law in 2014.  The next phase will explores ideas of the ‘human’ that underpin global law and policy, including the relationship between human rights law and the environment; environmental justice; and ‘environmentality’ and the evolution of new areas of expertise.  The group anticipates collaborating on a larger book project. Areas of interest include the relationship between human rights law and the environment; environmental justice, particularly with regard to natural resources and energy; counter-hegemonic uses of law through notions such as ‘the environmentalism of the poor’ or ‘the environmentalism of the people’; ‘environmentality’ and the evolution of new areas of expertise, multi-level governance, and political subjectivities; the influence of neoliberal ideology on law and environment; and the philosophical and practical effects of recognizing the rights of non-human entities, including the ‘rights of nature’.

Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL)

Convener: Sujith Xavier (Canada) Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Windsor University.

Contributors: Amar Bhatia (Canada) Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University; Usha Natarajan (Australia) Assistant Professor, The American University in Cairo. John Reynolds (Ireland) Lecturer, Department of Law, National University of Ireland Maynooth.

Description: TWAIL is a fast-growing network of scholars of international law and relations engaged with the evolving and complex relationship between the global North and South and the meaning and relevance of this relationship for contemporary law and society. TWAIL is characterized by the interdisciplinarity of its approaches to law and a commitment to understanding the histories, sociologies, and cultures of law. This project proposes a TWAIL Conference at the American University in Cairo, Egypt, from 22 to 24 February 2015, and two follow-up TWAIL Workshops at Windsor University, Canada, in June 2015, and the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, in September 2015.

The TWAIL movement began at Harvard Law School in the mid 1990s, with its two main goals being to unpack the colonial legacies of international laws and institutions, and engage in decolonizing efforts in legal pedagogy, practice, and scholarship. Since then, the network of TWAIL scholars has met regularly every few years, with the most recent gathering occurring in 2011. These meetings have evidenced TWAIL’s increasing relevance to the international law community, with the network growing quickly in size, cultural diversity, and multidisciplinarity over the last two decades. While united by an interest in the global South and its relationship with international law, TWAIL scholarly agendas are diverse and inclusive, ranging from human rights; humanitarianism; laws of war; environment and natural resource governance; indigenous and tribal laws; corporate, financial, and private law; migration and refugee laws and policies; international organizations; international criminal law; and trade and foreign investment law; among other things.

Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law

Organized by: Michelle Burgis (Australia), Paul Kingsley Clark (United Kingdom)Tor Krever ‎(Canada), Heidi Matthews (Canada), John Reynolds (Ireland) and Christine Schwobel (Germany). ‎

Description: The field of International Criminal Law (ICL) has recently experienced a significant surge in scholarship, in institutions, and in the public debate. The contemporary debate is predominantly focused on ICL’s contribution to projects of justice, peace, legality, addressing impunity and accountability. While there are individual sites of critique, they are largely limited to effectiveness arguments: If the International Criminal Court is not functioning as well as it could be, then it must be made more effective; if peace is not yet achieved through tackling impunity, then there must be more accountability. This limited critique has fostered a seemingly self-congratulatory, uncritical, and over-confident area of international law which has marginalized deeper critical approaches. What is missing from the mainstream debate are the possible complicities of ICL in injustice, conflict, exclusions, and biases. Arguably, the numerous conferences this year on the topic of the 10-year anniversary of the coming into force of the Rome Statute are largely a testament to this limited critique. Through this project the organizers hope to shift the debate towards such complicities and limitations in the contemporary understanding of ICL and to question some of the assumptions which inform the field and which may cause injustice, conflict, exclusion and bias. The Organizers hosted a conference on Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law at the University of Liverpool School of Law and Social Justice on December 6-7, 2012.  They have also formed the CAICL Research Network,  a collaborative project that brings together scholars who share an interest in critical approaches to International Criminal Law.  For more information, please visit their website: www.caicl.netMore information can be found on our Network News page or by contacting Christine Schwobel at [email protected]

June 2014 Update: Building on their prior IGLP supported collaboration in the field of international criminal law, this team will explore their shared commitment to a progressive politics and to the centrality of law. Dissatisfied with the hollowing out of political content from the ‘critical’ identity, they wish to recover the radical commitment to an emancipatory and transformative politics that was historically at its core. What kind of arguments can progressive politics (lawyers and legal scholars with progressive agendas) mount, and what kinds of actions can we take? How can we assist or effect the mobilization of transformative resistances to that which remains hegemonic? What are the possibilities and limitations of a ‘progressive’, ‘radical’, or ‘critical’ legal identity? Specifically, (how) can we achieve emancipatory goals through legal scholarship and/or legal practice? What is the interrelationship between the two (if any), in the context of our broader political practice?

Turf and Texture: Narrating the Legal International

Organized by: Lucas Lixinski (Brazil)Nikolas M. Rajkovic (Canada), and Surabhi Ranganathan (India)

Description: Current debates in international law seem to be informed by different narratives about what the international legal order “is” or “should be.”  These narratives inform the way in which we perceive and articulate international law; attempting to explain alleged convergences and divergences of international legal rules and institutions. Dominant approaches in the narration of the legal international include familiar labels such as “global administrative law”, “the constitutionalization of international law”, “international legal pluralism”, and “the fragmentation of international law”. Each of these approaches brings something different to the table, but little work has been done in scrutinizing the contribution of these narratives to an idea of the “legal international”. Particularly, limited analysis exists comparing these narratives, as well as applying them across specific specialized regimes, so as to assess the impact of each of them in the understanding of these regimes. This project aims at understanding these processes and evaluating the contribution of these overarching narratives to positive international law. The Organizers plan to host a Workshop in the Spring of 2013 at the University of Cambridge to explore these themes and expect to produce an edited volume of essays that will serve as a critical introduction to different ways of thinking about, describing and designing international law.

Global Law in Context

Organized by: Luis Eslava (Colombia) , Vanja Hamzic (Bosnia & Herzegovina), Vidya Kumar (Canada), Yoriko Otomo (Australia), and Henrique Carvalho (Brazil).

Description: The aim of this project is to generate an introductory undergraduate textbook with the underlying theme, ‘Global Law in Context.’ The book would be targeted to law students around the world and would offer fresh and under-explored perspectives on global law, as they relate to the core law subjects (property, contracts, administrative law, criminal law, constitutional law, corporate law, international arbitration law, labor law, family law, international law, human rights law, environmental law, etc). Additionally, our project responds to the inadequate amount of attention current global law texts pay to the rich variety of ways in which law is being produced, globalised and used across jurisdictions, scales of governance and social contexts. Accordingly, each chapter in ‘Global Law in Context’ will explore the plurality of mechanisms, rationalities, epistemologies, approaches, legal concepts and institutional arrangements that give a global shape to each particular legal field. In our view, it is important to place legal subjects and institutions within a broader historical, social, economic and political context than is presently the case; to discover how they are framed and experienced from outside the Global North; and to understand the sociology of absences (i.e. what is missing from existing accounts and why?) that animates current accounts of global law. The image that will emerge from these explorations will provide an understanding of how global law is being constituted both as a new subject of knowledge and as a mode of practice and reasoning. At the same time, it will become clear from the chapters of the book how different legal fields have been constituted for a long time as sites for the reproduction, as well as contestation, of ‘global’ political, economic and social forces. In so doing, we aim to examine how existing (and emerging) understandings of global law build on, reinforce, and conflict with the competing conceptions of law and globalization which are used to characterize the relationship between the Global North, Global South and elsewhere. As a result, our textbook aims to provide a critical understanding of the porous and multifaceted construction of global law in order to discover openings, fissures, and opportunities where resistance to the reproduction of relations of domination occur. Our textbook ‘Global law in Context’ will be followed by a companion collection of essays entitled ‘Global Law: Problems and Promises of a Concept’. This collection of essays constitutes the second major outcome of our project. The material for this book will be collected from commissioned essays and papers presented in a workshop conducted in the Global South. The essays collected in this book will analyzing key crosscutting issues on global law. Our target audience for this second book are undergraduate and postgraduate students with an interest on Global Law, junior and senior scholars, as well as policymakers and practitioners working in this field.

Rethinking Political Economy

Organized by: Jason Jackson (United States & The Bahamas) and Anush Kapadia (United States)

Description: This project seeks to address the narrow nature of the academic and policy discourse around the socioeconomic and governance challenges we face, perhaps best epitomized by the financial crisis, but also in long-standing debates on economic development and global governance.

It seeks to promote new thinking on economic governance that takes into account issues such as the distributional implications of the crisis and the ways in which the response was constructed through political contestation, rather than the dominant (depoliticized) view of these being technocratic outputs from “experts.”

Through a series of workshops and conferences, the organizers seek to create a space where young scholars from across different disciplines who share similar views can come together to work collaboratively on issues of political economy, and collaborate on scholarly writing for publication.

Pursuing your Enemies in the South: International Law and the War against Crime and Terror

Organized by: Arnulf Becker Lorca (Chile), Justin Desautels-Stein (United States), John Haskell (United States), Akbar Rasulov (Uzbekistan), and Vik Kanwar (India)

Description:  This Research Initiative has its beginnings in a series of meeting held at the IGLP Workshop in June, 2012.  At that time, the organizers met with several other non-European scholars in an attempt to begin a conversation about the transformations currently at work in the international laws of terrorism, crime, and war.  After the completion of the Workshop, the participants agreed to start work on chapters to be included in a new volume, grappling in different ways with the subject matter.

The old image of a battlefield packed with regular combatants in uniform is certainly a war image of a bygone era. New military technologies and the proliferation of armed conflicts between states and hostile non-state actors have blurred the delimitation of the battlefield and the distinction between combatants and civilians. War experts have for a long time recognized these changes and discussed its implications for military strategy, policy as well as law. Legal experts have explored the tensions between the new forms and goals of warfare and the traditional law of war, namely the public international law regime regulating and limiting interstate war. Does the prohibition to use armed force include force against non-state actors? Do laws regulating the conduct of hostilities between states – the immunity to kill associated to the POW status, for instance – apply to non-international armed conflict?

There is no consensus on the legality of the use of force against hostile non-state actors in the territory of another state. International lawyers are divided between those advancing an expansive reading of the law of war which regards this type of military intervention lawful, and those supporting a restrictive interpretation which considers these interventions unlawful. The former view is mostly articulated by international lawyers interpreting the law from the point of view of Western states with strategic interests and military capabilities to pursue their enemies by using armed force beyond their own frontiers. The United States, for example, has used irregular ground forces as well as drone attacks against hostile non-state actors; against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen and against criminal organizations in Mexico.

On the other hand, a restrictive interpretation of the law of war is mostly advanced by international lawyers situated at the Western centers of the globe who see the law from the perspective of the interest of the international community. It is remarkable, however, that there is no view interpreting rules and balancing policy objectives in light of the interests and the position of weaker states of the semi-periphery, states that are most commonly affected by the type of military intervention this article investigates. This book will attempt to fill this gap.

After a successful meeting among the organizers and other contributors held at the University of Glasgow in January 2013, the group plans to present its current work at the 2013 IGLP Conference.  The organizers hope for the project to culminate in an edited volume, to be published at the end of 2013 or early 2014.

Before and After Method: Histories and Sociologies of International Law

Organized by: John Haskell (United States)Akbar Rasulov (Uzbekistan), Alejandro Lorite Escorihuela (Colombia), and Umut Özsu (Canada)

Description:  The organizers are planning a two-year project on the methodologies of international legal scholarship. The basic idea around which they intend to organize this project can be summarized most succinctly as an attempt to “sociologize” the enterprise of international legal historiography. The recent turn to history in international legal scholarship has generated a significant degree of theoretical reflection, with issues of Eurocentrism and center-periphery relations receiving increasingly sophisticated consideration. Nevertheless, only a limited number of works in recent international legal studies have sought to engage directly and critically with methodologies developed by intellectual historians, economic historians, historical sociologists, and critical social theorists. The organizers aim to rectify this state of affairs. Broaching international legal history as a field of competing projects driven by rival visions of world order and state sovereignty, this enterprise will contribute to the increasingly self-reflexive literature on the sociology of international legal thought and practice. While each participant will be invited to prepare a paper that analyzes a particular jurist, school, doctrine, or tradition in its socio-historical context, one of the ultimate purposes of the project will be to advance a broader argument about the methodologies of international legal scholarship.

The organizers plan to convene a small, tightly structured workshop to discuss draft papers in Cambridge, MA in June 2013 and a subsequent UK-based workshop. The project’s ultimate objective is to have revised versions of the papers published in the form of a broadly interconnected set of essays by a leading academic publisher.

Critical Approaches to Human Rights

Organized by: Aziza Ahmed (United States), Michelle Burgis-Kasthala (Australia), and Zinaida Miller (United States)

Description:  The purpose of this project is to examine critical approaches to human rights with an eye towards understanding where and how the critiques have become absorbed into mainstream human rights work without significant transformation of the field. Despite a plethora of sustained critique, little evidence exists for significant shifts within mainstream human rights theory and practice. In response to this impasse, the organizers propose convening two workshops to provide an opportunity to rethink and re-examine these critiques in relation to the current moment in human rights. The project seeks to bring together junior scholars for a critical reading of key critical texts on human rights in September 2013, followed by a workshop with senior scholars to discuss draft papers for an edited volume or special journal issue.