31
Mar
ASIL Cables: Interview with James Crawford
Recent guest-poster, Professor Tai-Heng Cheng, has an interview on ASIL Cables with Professor James Crawford, this year's recipient of the Manley O. Hudson Medal:Tai-Heng Cheng (THC): Congratulations on receiving the Manley O Hudson medal, Professor Crawford. Your many accomplishments are well known to our members, and I was wondering what achievements in your career have you found most meaningful? James Crawford (JC): Thank you. There have been too many moments to mention them all, but perhaps there are a few that stand out. There was my time on the Australian Law Reform Commission in the 1980s when I worked on indigenous rights, admiralty and state immunity – quite a mixture. I have a special place in my memory for my first case before the International Court of Justice, Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, in which I acted alongside Ian Brownlie representing the Republic of Nauru. Another case before the Court which stands out for me was the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project decision, which was my first lead in the Court. Serving as Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility in the years leading to the adoption of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, was a particular highlight. Latterly I’ve enjoyed working with terrific teams on cases for Colombia and Costa Rica, among others. And a recent intense effort was the 8th edition of Brownlie’s Principles, which comes out in August. THC: Looking back at the evolution of international law since 1945, what are some of the most significant developments? JC: The most obvious developments have probably been in connection with the evolving position of the individual under international law – in the fields of international criminal law and international human rights law particularly. Both of these fields were embryonic in the years following World War II and have since expanded exponentially. Related to this is the development of investor-state arbitrations, with private entities bringing growing numbers of disputes against foreign states directly under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties, without needing to rely on diplomatic protection. Our understanding of self-determination under international law has also changed since 1945, when it was primarily associated with decolonisation and the formation of new states, whereas it has since developed into a wider notion encompassing the ongoing guarantee of fundamental human rights and democratic accountability within existing states. Some see these changes as an erosion of state sovereignty, but I would argue that sovereignty remains very much the foundation of our system of international law, and that the notion of sovereignty is flexible enough to accommodate modifications without collapsing altogether.