06 Jun AALS International Law Section Call for Papers
There is nothing wrong with spending a few days in SoCal in January!
CALL FOR PAPERS
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS
SECTION ON INTERNATIONAL LAW
San Diego, California
January 9, 2009
PROGRAM TOPIC: Taking International Law Seriously: Will the United States Abide by International Law that is a Law of Rules?
PROGRAM SUMMARY: For the world at large, the rule of law is a law of rules. Most states understand international law in this way. When the United States seemingly departs from those rules, the world criticizes us. Cynics say that we are just another superpower that does not want to be bound by rules. Might the explanation lie elsewhere: not in cynicism, but in different conceptions of law and of its application? When Americans look at international law, they look at it from a common law perspective. When American courts apply international law to facts, they do so as common law courts. Might this explain why Americans sometimes come to different conclusions about what international law requires than do their foreign counterparts?
Papers are to be presented on January 9, 2009 at the AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego, and are to be published in a special volume of IUS GENTIUM, a scholarly series published by Springer, one of the world’s largest academic publishers, and available on WestLaw and Lexis.
PAPER SUBMISSION AND SELECTION PROCEDURE: No later than August 15, 2008 interested speakers should submit proposals by e-mail to jmaxeiner@ubalt.edu. They may submit either a three-to-five page summary or a draft paper. Draft papers, unless the submitter requests otherwise, will also be considered by the editors of IUS GENTIUM for publication in the volume mentioned above.
Members of the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law will select two or more presenters from among the responses to this Call for Papers. The Committee encourages junior scholars and scholars of diverse backgrounds from the United States and from foreign countries to submit proposals. The Section may have available limited funds to support one foreign scholar to travel to the United States to speak at the program.
For further information contact:
James R. Maxeiner
Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director
Center for International and Comparative Law
University of Baltimore School of Law
1420 N. Charles St.
Baltimore MD 21201
PROGRAM SUMMARY: For the world at large, the rule of law is a law of rules. Most states understand international law in this way. When the United States seemingly departs from those rules, the world criticizes us. Cynics say that we are just another superpower that does not want to be bound by rules. Might the explanation lie elsewhere: not in cynicism, but in different conceptions of law and of its application? When Americans look at international law, they look at it from a common law perspective. When American courts apply international law to facts, they do so as common law courts. Might this explain why Americans sometimes come to different conclusions about what international law requires than do their foreign counterparts? Coupled with the ASIL Annual Meeting topic next year of International Law as Law, I know that there is some significant consternation by international law scholars about these emphases in the United States on a question of international law as law as opposed to the issue of enforcement and compliance with international law. Especially after so many years of non-compliance by the United States with so many basic aspects of international law. These appear to be fairly thinly… Read more »
I totally agree with prof. Davis. What’s not to understand in the most basic rules of international law? What’s in common law rules that let’s you invade countries unilaterally? Perhaps not being from a common law background, I need some enlightment.
Ben,
Equally troubling are efforts by the same international law scholars who turn political disagreements into legal ones. The U.S. does’t break the law when it doesn’t sign Kyoto or the ICC or the landmines treaty. Nevertheless, those disputes often take an unjustified legal aspect with people arguing that the U.S. has somehow run afoul of international law.