09 Apr Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 34-1: Online Symposium
The Yale Journal of International Law (YJIL) is pleased to continue its partnership with Opinio Juris in this third online symposium. Today, Friday, and Monday we will feature three Articles published by YJIL in Vol. 34-1, which is available for download here. Thank you very much to Peggy McGuinness and the other Opinio Juris bloggers for hosting and joining in this discussion.
Today, Pierre-Hugues Verdier (Boston University School of Law) will discuss his Article, Transnational Regulatory Networks and Their Limits. Verdier’s Article serves as a counterpoint to scholars who are enthusiastic about the potential for transgovernmental regulatory networks (TRNs)—associations through which national regulators cooperate to address common regulatory problems—to create a system of effective global governance. Verdier agrees that TRNs may be successful in overcoming relatively simple problems of coordination when state interests converge. However, where the choice of a specific policy has distributive implications, or where participating states have incentives to defect, Verdier concludes that TRNs are unlikely to be successful. Verdier analyzes three of the most salient examples of TRNs—in international securities fraud enforcement, banking regulation, and antitrust—and shows that the institutional weaknesses inherent in TRNs have limited the effectiveness of cooperation in these areas. David Zaring (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania) will be the respondent.
On Friday, Robert Sloane (Boston University School of Law) will discuss his Article, The Cost of Conflation: Preserving the Dualism of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Contemporary Law of War. Sloane argues that the traditional analytic independence of the two branches of the law of war—(i) the jus ad bellum, which governs the resort to war, and (ii) the jus in bello, which governs the conduct of hostilities—has increasingly eroded in the modern era. Sloane argues that the cost of this ad bellum-in bello conflation is high: blurring the two threatens to compromise the efficacy of each. His Article defends the continuing vitality of the dualistic axiom while suggesting ways to improve its application today in light of recent geostrategic developments, technological advances, and changes in the nature of warfare. Derek Jinks (University of Texas Law School) will be the respondent.
On Monday, Molly Beutz Land (New York Law School) will discuss her Article, Protecting Rights Online. In this Article, Beutz explains why the human rights and access to knowledge (A2K) movements have developed disparate legal and regulatory agendas despite sharing many of the same goals. Beutz argues that the movements’ lack of agreement has inhibited coherent regulation of Internet governance. Building on recent literature discussing the design of international institutions, Beutz develops a model of “flexible harmonization” —the use of imprecise but binding international norms—that responds to the regulatory goals and concerns of both the human rights and A2K movements. Beutz uses this model to evaluate two proposed regulatory frameworks for Internet governance and examines the conditions under which a model of flexible harmonization could be employed in other contexts. Peter Yu (Drake University School of Law) will be the respondent.
We hope that you will join us for what is sure to be a vigorous and thought-provoking exchange!