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.
This book is an inquiry into the role of law in the contemporary political economy of hunger. In the work of many international institutions, governments, and NGOs, law is represented as a solution to the persistence of hunger. This presentation is evident in the efforts to realize a human right to adequate food, as well as in the positioning of law, in the form of regulation, as a tool to protect society from 'unruly' markets. In this monograph, Anna Chadwick draws on theoretical work from a range of disciplines to challenge accounts that portray law's role in the context of hunger as exclusively remedial.
Chapter in: Horatia Muir Watt, Lucia Bíziková, Agatha Brandão de Oliveira and Fernández Arroyo (eds.) Global Private International Law Adjudication without Frontiers (Edward Elgar, 2019)
Deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction may soon become a commercial reality. The deep seabed covers almost three-quarters of the entire surface area of our oceans, and it boasts an array of valuable mineral resources, including metals and rare earth elements. This article will evaluate the international legal regime, which applies to mining activities in this area. Acting under UNCLOS, the International Seabed Authority is responsible for regulating the deep seabed and granting mining contracts to allow investors to explore for and exploit deep seabed minerals. After assessing the types of mineral resources present in the deep seabed, this article will consider the key parameters of the UNCLOS deep seabed regime, including its licensing process and the extent to which actors are undertaking mining activities within the regime at present.
European Yearbook of International Economic Law / Volume 9 / pp. 261-287
The deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction comprises almost three-quarters of the entire surface area of our oceans. It boasts an array of mineral resources, including valuable metals and rare earth elements. Acting under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority is responsible for regulating this area and granting mining contracts to allow investors to explore for and exploit deep seabed minerals. As yet, deep seabed mining activities have been confined to the exploratory stage. However, recently, there has been a marked growth in deep seabed investment by private corporate actors. As technology advances and commercial appetite increases, extraction of deep seabed minerals may soon commence. In this context, this article seeks to address crucial legal issues facing pioneers of deep seabed mining. What is the extent of investment protection within the existing regime? And are there dispute resolution options to enforce such protection?
Journal of World Investment and Trade / Volume 19 / Issue 5-6 / pp. 890-929
It is by now uncontroversial that states may owe human rights obligations to individuals outside their territory. The debate about extraterritoriality has, so far, focused on the concept and interpretation of jurisdiction. The role of territory in general, and title in particular, in the conceptual landscape has received less attention in comparison. This article aims to fill this gap by showing that (a) title to territory continues to shape interpretations of jurisdiction, and (b) that this should be avoided. To this end, the article first defines jurisdiction in international human rights law and title to territory. Jurisdiction is best understood as a threshold criterion that triggers human rights obligations of states towards particular individuals. Title to territory, on the other hand, is a set of claims to territory designed to uphold minimal stability. The article then introduces three models – the approximation model, the differentiation model, and the separation model – of the relationship between title to territory and jurisdiction in international human rights law and evaluates them in light of their fit with the relational nature of human rights. The result is that the approximation and differentiation models – that is, those that maintain title's influence on the interpretation of jurisdiction in various degrees – fail the success criterion, while the separation model satisfies it.
Leiden Journal of International Law, 31(2), pp. 315-334. (doi:10.1017/S0922156518000018)
This article retraces the role of sub-imperialism in the formation of the Australian state as a subject of international law. The discourse of sub-imperialism developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a means of characterising the British self-governing Dominions’ uncertain status in the international order, and drew explicitly on the United States Monroe Doctrine. The article revisits the significance of sub-imperialist posturing at two critical junctures in the historical formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The first is the formalisation in the early 1880s of the movement toward federation of the Australasian colonies as a response to perceived British acquiescence to German imperialism in the Western Pacific. The second is the Commonwealth government’s attempt during the Versailles negotiations of 1919 to annex to its territory the occupied German Pacific territories of New Guinea and Nauru. The principal argument made in this article is that attempts to establish an Australian sub-empire in the Western Pacific were fundamental both to the federation movement and the recognition of Australian sovereignty in international law. The article concludes that Australian sub-imperialism warrants greater attention both in accounts of the history of Australia’s transition from self-governing Dominion to sovereign status in international law, and in accounts of contemporary Australian foreign policy in the Pacific region.
Melbourne Journal of International Law / Volume 19 / Issue 1 / pp. 335-368