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.
"International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction" is an introductory handbook that aims to promote and strengthen knowledge of international humanitarian law (IHL) among academics, weapon-bearers, humanitarian workers and media professionals. It presents contemporary issues related to IHL in an accessible and practical style, and in line with the ICRC’s reading of the law. That, plus its distinctive format – combining “In a nutshell”, “To go further” and thematic textboxes – make it the ideal everyday companion for anyone approaching IHL for the first time and curious about conflict-related matters, as well as for military and humanitarian personnel seeking useful guidance on a vast array of topics.
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 EU's newly acquired competence over foreign investment poses largely unprecedented legal challenges: the Union's unique structure and functioning are bound to raise questions about the traditional format of international investor-State arbitration. Anticipating these challenges, the European Commission has proposed a Regulation on managing the financial responsibility that arises out of such arbitrations; revised version of this proposal was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. After outlining the contemporary international investment regime, as well as the relevant aspects of the EU legal system, this Article scrutinizes three problematic issues under international law that arise from the Regulation: respondent status in international arbitral proceedings, attribution of treatment, and compliance with the final award. This Article also discusses the means of recourse open to EU Member States dissatisfied with the EU's performance as respondent or its apportionment of financial responsibility.
(2014) 47 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1203