The publications listed here represent a small selection of the work of staff members of the GCILS. To see full listings of publications please click through to the University of Glasgow main webpages in each individual staff member profile.
The intense and polemical debate over the legality and morality of weapons systems to which human cognitive functions are delegated (up to and including the capacity to select targets and release weapons without further human intervention) addresses a phenomena which does not yet exist but which is widely claimed to be emergent. This groundbreaking collection combines contributions from roboticists, legal scholars, philosophers and sociologists of science in order to recast the debate in a manner that clarifies key areas and articulates questions for future research. The contributors develop insights with direct policy relevance, including who bears responsibility for autonomous weapons systems, whether they would violate fundamental ethical and legal norms, and how to regulate their development. It is essential reading for those concerned about this emerging phenomenon and its consequences for the future of humanity.
Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals include, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence
This article argues that Jaloud v Netherlands and Pisari v Moldova and Russia should be interpreted as changing the approach to the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. It advances three key arguments. First, it suggests a reading of these cases pointing to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights is no longer relying on the separation of the different models of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Secondly, it advances a model of jurisdiction based on power understood as a potential for control and the application of rules to the concerned individuals. Thirdly, it argues that this model is preferable to the previous ones because it explains hard cases just as well or better and, in addition, captures a distinct understanding of the function of human rights recognized in the Convention.
European Human Rights Law Review, 2, pp. 161-168.
Le retentissement du principe de proportionnalité partout dans le monde constitue un des développements juridiques les plus significatifs des dernières années et explique l'intérêt considérable que suscite cette question dans la littérature française et internationale. À l'encontre des analyses qui ont tendance à banaliser son impact (notamment en le ravalant au rang de simple exception au fonctionnement normal du système juridique), cette thèse cherche à montrer que le principe de proportionnalité signifie un bouleversement profond du droit. L'analyse est abordée dans le contexte particulier de l'Union européenne, qui s'avère à maints égards paradigmatique, à partir d'un examen du raisonnement de la Cour de justice dans ses décisions en application des libertés de circulation. L'intérêt de cet examen est double. D'un côté, il permet de prendre acte de l'ampleur du potentiel transformateur du principe de proportionnalité sur les plans formel (imposant une forme de raisonnement factualisée, qui consiste en une évaluation coûts-bénéfices), matériel (érigeant l'efficience des mesures étatiques en but ultime des libertés de circulation) et institutionnel (redéfinissant la répartition de compétences entre l'Union et les États membres). D'un autre côté, le principe de proportionnalité étant un miroir particulièrement apte à refléter la culture juridique de l'Union, cet examen permet aussi d'identifier les traits caractéristiques de cette culture, pour montrer notamment la prévalence d'un discours de nature technocratique.
The Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties provides an authoritative treatment of fundamental issues in international treaty law. Identifying key challenges facing the modern law of treaties, the Handbook addresses the current regime and comments on potential directions of the law.
This book traces the impact that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has had on various areas of international law. A number of prominent international experts examine whether, and to what extent, international law has been shaped by the Court's jurisprudence. The informal development of international law through the Court's judgments contrasts with the development of international law through more deliberate means, such as treaty-making. Assessing key areas of international law over which the ICJ has exercised its jurisdiction, such as international environmental law, international human rights, the law of the sea, and the law of immunities, this book comprehensively details the impact of international jurisprudence on contemporary international law. It makes required reading for anyone studying the ways in which international courts have in shaping the evolution of international law.