Upcoming Events
Past Events
16.09.2022: Ezgi Yildiz attended the Inaugural Conference of the Swiss Network for Law and Society and presented her forthcoming book Between Forbearance and Audacity: How the European Court of Human Rights Redefined the Norm against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.
The book investigates when can we expect international courts to advance the law, and when will they refrain—or even regress? This paper explores the conditions under which the international courts tend to issue progressive decisions, widening the application of existing human rights norms. It builds this assessment on the example of the European Court of Human Rights and the way it has refashioned the norm against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Employing mixed methods ranging from expert interviews to content analysis of nearly 2’300 judgments, I argue that the Court’s progressivity is a function of the width of the discretionary space that states grant to the Court. The progressive change is more likely when this space is wider, as we have witnessed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. When the discretionary space is narrow, I find that the Court is selectively progressive—a characteristic we observed between the 1960s and the late 1990s and then again in the 2010s. In such instances, the issue characteristics matter. The Court tends to be more progressive around issues of lower stakes for which there is a general agreement among member states. Yet, when the stakes increase, it either keeps the status quo or even retracts some of the rights. This analysis does not only shed light on the institutional explanations behind the legal change, but it also shows that the backlash and political pushback we observe today are not unique. The Court has always operated under the shadow of political pushback, which left its mark on the legal progress within the European human rights regime. Public criticism and pushback against international courts have certain costs, as they can inhibit courts’ progressive agendas. Yet, there is more to legal progress. Even if there is occasional stagnation at times, progress can always work incrementally and then speed up suddenly when the conditions are suitable.
15.09.2022: Ezgi Yildiz presented “Do States Learn? Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights,” at the European Consortium of Political Research Conference (ECPR), Innsbruck, Austria, August 22-26 and the American Political Science (APSA) Association Annual Conference, Montreal Canada September 15-18 (together with Umut Yüksel).
Do states learn and improve their practices after being found in violation by a supranational court? This paper analyzes the degree to which international courts may play a pedagogical role and the extent to which states learn from their past practices by looking at the case of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) and its Article 3 (prohibition of torture) jurisprudence. In order to ensure that the European Convention of Human Rights remains “practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory,” the Court has recognized a series of new obligations in its recent history and expanded the remit of existing protections under the European Convention of Human Rights. The introduction of procedural obligations under Article 3 is a prime example of this expansion, and it constitutes an innovative solution to cultivate a robust rule of law tradition across Europe. Using an original dataset that disaggregates the Court’s Article 3 rulings at the level of the obligations, this article analyses the extent to which countries found in violation of their procedural obligations improve their subsequent practices. This research offers two distinct contributions. First, it assesses whether being found in violation of procedural obligations decreases the likelihood of future violations under Article 3 and states’ ability to learn and improve their domestic procedures. Second, it evaluates the spread of procedural misconduct in Europe and shows whether the rule of law crisis is limited to well-known examples of Poland, Hungary, Russia, and Turkey.
14.09.2022: Ezgi Yildiz participated in the Global Complexity in and Through Time workshop organized by Stephanie Hofmann and Orfeo Fioretos at CERUIM of the University of Montreal. Together with Umut Yüksel, she presented a think piece entitled, “Detecting Complexity and its Effects over Time: Evidence from the Field of Maritime Delimitation”
In this piece, they assess the creation and the maintenance of complexity in the field of maritime delimitation drawing inspiration from the historical institutionalism literature. They analyze the origins, main characteristics, and implications of complexity in this field, focusing in particular on its impact on policy harmonization over time. The field is structured around multilateral treaties – such as the 1958 Geneva Convention on Continental Shelf and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – as well as the active involvement of international courts and tribunals, most notably, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but also the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and arbitral tribunals. They argue that what drove the complexity and hindered policy harmonization in this field is the mixed messages sent by international courts and tribunals, and especially the ICJ, over time.
08.09.2022: Ezgi Yildiz participated in The Anti-torture Norm: Emerging Directions in Research, the University of Copenhagen and the University of Birmingham, Copenhagen, Denmark, and presented insights from her forthcoming book Between Forbearance and Audacity: How the European Court of Human Rights Redefined the Norm against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
15.03.2022 PATHs Panel VII: “Exploring Paths of Change in the Field of Business and Human Rights”
Room S8, Maison de la paix and online
Panelists:
- Lara Jesani, Human Rights Activist and Advocate at Bombay High Court, India
- Robert McCorquodale, Prof. of International Law and Human Rights, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
- Kebene Wodajo, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for Business Ethics, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Moderator:
- Dorothea Endres, PhD Candidate in International Law and Researcher at the Global Governance Centre, The Graduate Institute, Geneva, Switzerland
Calls for change are ubiquitous in the field of Business and Human Rights: increased accountability of corporations or more consequential enforcement or clearer regulations of human rights with respect to corporations have been on the agenda of human rights scholars and activists for decades. In contrast, very little attention is paid to the way in which law regulating corporate behaviour internationally has actually been changing. International human rights law narratives highlight the increasing density of regulation, and portray hope for a potential accumulation of this regulation in a treaty on Business and Human Rights. Is this story of progress an accurate one? Who are the crucial actors pushing or blocking the legal change? How have the sites of or fora for legal change shifted over time? This panel will put perspectives from theory and practice, from different continents, and from old and new technologies into conversation. In this way, the speakers will explore the avenues on which legal change in the field of Business and Human Rights has actually travelled in the last few decades.
12.11.2021 LCIL Friday Lecture: “From Drivers to Bystanders: The Varying Roles of States in International Legal Change”
Presenter: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
International law is in constant movement, and any proper account of the international legal order needs to place this movement at the centre. “The course of international law needs to be understood if international law is to be understood,” says James Crawford in the opening of his general course at the Hague Academy in 2013. Yet rarely do we find focused and systematic attention to this ‘course of international law,’ to the ways in which international legal rules change, get reaffirmed or disappear. In this paper, we take a step towards a broader account of these dynamics, and we interrogate in particular the varying roles states play in them – largely from an empirical, not a doctrinal starting point. We pay particular attention to contexts in which states take secondary roles in change processes – roles of bystanders, catalysts, or spoilers – and we outline two core factors which, we believe, can help us understand much of the variation we observe. With this, we hope to dispel some of the shadows cast by doctrinal representations and make progress on the way to on the way to developing a richer, more empirically-oriented and more ‘social’ account of the paths of international law.
Watch the lecture online: https://upload.sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/3700907
21.06.2021 Law and Humanities Roundtable 2021: Change and the Law
Presenter: Dorothea Endres, PhD Candidate International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
At the third annual Law and Humanities Roundtable, which features four original, interdisciplinary, and humanities-focused paper presentations reflecting on the theme of change, this presentation will demonstrate how the concept of norm knitting can be useful for the analysis of legal change. The broad starting point is that one can begin the knitting project with one needle, but to actually construct anything, more than one needle is necessary: at least two actors need to collaborate and build upon each other’s work. If those two actors neatly agree upon the pattern to be knitted, the resulting sheet may be uniform and dense, able to cover all situations it is intended for. However, it is not that easy to knit in exactly the same pace and pattern. Sometimes, the wool is held too tightly, and the net becomes too dense; sometimes the wool is held too loosely, and the net will have holes. The constructed law may not fit perfectly all situations it is intended for, because the different actors may have had different patterns in their head. This visualization provides for an innovative analytical tool that makes it possible to demonstrate the variety in ‘successful’ change of a given norm in international law in response to specific challenges the actors face.
03.05.2021 Paths Panel VI: The Interaction of Law and Politics in Norm Implementation
Anette Stimmer, Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow, University of Oxford
Discussant: Lisbeth Zimmermann, Chair of International Relations, Zeppelin University
Moderator: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
When states conclude negotiations and ratify international treaties such as the Paris Agreement, we consider this a significant development. There is now an expectation that those who joined the international agreement will make efforts to implement it. This paper analyses the following question: what does a state’s effort to implement a norm of international law tell us about its commitment to that norm? I propose that we can infer a state’s degree of commitment by looking at the consistency and publicity of words and actions and the state’s engagement with the international community. Depending on whether a state’s discourse and behaviour exhibit low or strong levels of commitment, we can then identify weak normative influence, strong normative influence, norm avoidance, or internalisation. I, therefore, speak to both the first and second strand of norm research that Wiener and Orchard identify by looking at the process of implementation and by emphasising the agency of states in this process.
07.04.2021 ISA Panel – International Legal Order in the Making: Pathways for Change and Sources of Resilience
Chair: Nina Reiners, Postdoctoral Researcher in International Relations at the University of Potsdam
Discussant: Antje Wiener, Professor of Political Science and Global Governance, University of Hamburg
Organisers: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Ezgi Yildiz, Postdoctoral Researcher, Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Panel: Orfeo Fioretos, Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University
Giovanni Mantilla, Lecturer Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge
Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID & Ezgi Yildiz, Postdoctoral Researcher, Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Wayne Sandholtz, John A. McCone Chair in International Relations and Professor of International Relations and Law, University of Southern California
Mark A. Pollack, Professor of Political Science and Law and Jean Monnet Chair, Temple University
08.03.2021 Paths Panel V: The Narrowing of the European Court of Human Rights? Legal Diplomacy, Situational Self-Restraint and Dejudicialisation
Mikael Rask Madsen, Professor of European Law and Integration & Director of iCourts, Centre of Excellence for international Courts, University of Copenhagen
Discussant: Corina Heri, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Law of the University of Zurich
Moderator: Ezgi Yildiz, Postdoctoral Researcher, Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has faced a growing number of challenges, stemming, among other reasons, from problems with the implementation of some of its judgments, an upsurge of sovereigntist sentiments in some member states and the rise of de facto illiberal democracies within its jurisdiction. This article examines the effects that these changing contexts have had on the operation of the ECtHR. In very general terms, the article finds that the ECtHR has become increasingly more restrained, but that this restraint plays out in multiple different ways which reflect the structural differences among the member states with regard to the protection of human rights. The article argues that the ECtHR has developed a new and differentiated legal rationality that combines elements of its original legal diplomacy with new forms of strategic deference and a different vision for its overarching role in the protection of European human rights. Overall, the result is a narrowing of the role of the Court.
30.11. to 10.12.2021: Authors’ Workshop on “The Paths of Change in International Law”
Convenors: Nico Krisch & Ezgi Yildiz. Twenty scholars of international law and international relations, from junior to senior, held virtual in-depth discussions on draft chapters for a joint volume around the project theme. The program is available here: Paths of International Law Workshop Program.
12.11.2020 Paths Panel IV: Letting External Norms in: How Do Courts Behave When Reviewing Environmental Norms?
Ezgi Yildiz, Postdoctoral Researcher, Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Chanya Punyakumpol, PhD Candidate International Law, Research Assistant, Center for Trade and Economic Integration, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Carlos Antonio Cruz Carrillo, Research Assistant, Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Discussant: Mark Pollack, Professor of Political Science and Law and Jean Monnet Chair, Temple University
Moderator: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
How do courts treat norms that are external to their foundational document?
In this paper, we seek to understand the way international courts develop external norms – subject matters that are not explicitly mentioned in, or otherwise not the main objectives of, their constitutive treaties. Applying a tripartite typology, we assess whether they tend to proactively develop the norm and encourage judicial fertilization (i.e. acting as entrepreneurs), or apply establish reasoning introduced in previous rulings (i.e. acting as arbitrators), or issue evasive rulings and employ judicial economy (i.e. acting as delineators). In so doing, we analyze whether they act entrepreneurial or deferential and we distinguish deference to legal authorities from deference to states. We analyze the patterns of judicial behavior looking at the case of environmental norms across three fields of international law, namely trade, human rights, and law of the sea.
This exploratory research sheds light not only on the link between judicial behavior and citation patterns, but also on diverging and converging judicial strategies when addressing environmental norms.
15.10.2020 Paths Panel III: Norm(ative) Change in International Relations: A Conceptual Framework
Antje Wiener, Professor of Political Science and Global Governance, University of Hamburg
Discussant: Erna Burai, Postdoctoral Researcher, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Moderator: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Current contestations of the liberal international order stand in notable contrast with the earlier rise of international law during the post-cold war period. As Krieger and Liese argue, this situation calls for assessment of the type of change that is currently observed, i.e. norm change (Wandel) or a more fundamental transformation of international law – a metamorphosis (Verwandlung)? To address this question, this paper details the bi-focal approach to norms in order to reflect and take account of the complex interrelation between fact-based and value-based conceptions of norms.
28.10.2019 In the Name of the Holy Trinity: Examining Credibility under Anarchy through 250 Years of Treaty-Making
Krzysztof J. Pelc, Associate Professor and William Dawson Scholar, Department of Political Science McGill University
Where does the binding force of international treaties come from?
This article considers three centuries of international peace treaties to chart how signatories have sought to convince one another of the viability of their commitments. It shows how one means of doing so was by invoking divine authority: treaty violations were punished by divine sanction in heaven and excommunication on earth.
6-7.06.2019 The Paths of International Law Workshop
Convenors: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Ezgi Yildiz, Postdoctoral Researcher, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
In the workshop, we seek to bring together leading and rising scholars from different
disciplines – law, international relations, and political sociology – to explore these issues in a small and interactive format. We are particularly interested in sharpening the contrasts
between different theoretical and methodological approaches, and invite participants to
develop distinctive arguments rather than ecumenical accounts. If you are interested in joining the workshop as an auditor for the morning sessions please contact the PATHS team. The preliminary programme is now available here.
This panel brings together recent research analyzing the authority of legal instruments – be it international, regional or national – in the fields of IHL and International Environmental Law.
Linus Mührel, Freie Universität Berlin
“The Authority of Interpretations and Law-Ascertainments of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Course of Times”
Linus examines how the ICRC’s output has impacted the contemporary understanding of relevant notions of IHL in the legal practice of international courts, states, as well as in international legal scholarship, thereby succeeding in occasioning change in international law.
Aylin Yildiz, World Trade Institute
“The Law and Governance of Climate Change and Migration: A Case Study from Fiji”
Aylin analyses the recent climate change and migration instruments of Fiji in light of regional and international initiatives, and finds that cooperative governance structures are crucial to inform and strengthen national frameworks.
Discussants: Lucy Lu Reimers, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID, Francesco Romani, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law- University of Cambridge
12.12.2018 Paths Panel I: Transnational Lawmaking
Nina Reiners, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Chair of International Politics, University of Potsdam, Johannes Fahner, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Luxembourg
Discussant: Ezgi Yildiz, Postdoctoral Researcher, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
Moderator: Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law and Co-Director of the Global Governance Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies – IHEID
This panel brings together new research on international adjudication and transnational lawmaking coalitions. In particular, the participants discuss the authority of international judges and the treaty bodies, and shed light on international lawmaking processes.
Dr Reiners will present her research insights from her postdoctoral project “From International to Transnational Human Rights Lawmaking”, while Dr Hendrik Fahner will share his research insights from his dissertation “Intensity of Review in International Courts and Tribunals – A Comparative Analysis of Deference“.
03.12.2018 Colloquium: Measuring the Topology of Institutional Complexity
James Hollway, Assistant Professor Political Science/International Relations, IHEID
To date the research on regime complexes has typically developed theory with reference to single policy areas. Our paper argues that a comparative perspective on both the statics and dynamics of regime complexity is an important next step in theory development, but that commensuration is first required. Given different characteristics across policy domains, we propose a topological typology based on two structural dimensions: dominance and coherence.
29.10.2018 Colloquium: An Extended Critique of International Adjudication
Ingo Venzke, Professor of International Law and Social Justice, University of Amsterdam
The paper illustrates how different ways of thinking about past judicial decisions effects their appearance. More specifically, it draws on insights from experiments to show what explaining past judicial decisions not only increases the perceived likelihood of those decisions but also makes them look more just. Conversely, thinking about alternative decisions makes them look less likely and less agreeable. In short, the appearance of the path of international law very much depends on the posture with which it is received.
06.06.2018 Colloquium: Human Rights Treaty Obligations and State Commitment
Wayne Sandholtz, Professor of International Relations and Law, University of Southern California
Research on human rights treaty commitment analyzes the costs of ratifying treaties in terms of regime type and other state-level attributes. But little scholarship to date has analyzed the effects of treaty design, in particular, the substance of treaty obligations, on the likelihood of ratification. We analyze new data that code every provision of ten global human rights treaties for the strength and precision of the obligations they contain. We classify obligations that are strong, precise, and that require domestic action as “demanding.” We hypothesize that treaties containing more of these demanding obligations would be seen as more costly to ratify because they imply potentially greater policy adaptation or compliance costs. Event history analyses are consistent with that hypothesis.
04.06.2018 PATHS Brainstorming Workshop
This workshop brought together scholars from the Graduate Institute and the broader Geneva area to discuss preliminary ideas for the project. The aim was to explore potential synergies with other research projects currently undertaken in Geneva and beyond, and engage in a fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue. We also initiated a conversation about the ways in which legal change occurs in different issue areas and the differences between them.
14.05.2018 Colloquium: Global Lawmakers: The Sociology of International Organizations in the Crafting of World Markets
Terence Halliday, Research Professor, American Bar Foundation, and Susan Block-Lieb, Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Global lawmaking by international organizations holds the potential for enormous influence over world trade and national economies. Representatives from states, industries, and professions produce laws for worldwide adoption in an effort to alter state lawmaking and commercial behaviors, whether of giant multi-national corporations or micro, small and medium-sized businesses. Who makes that law and who benefits affects all states and all market players. Global Lawmakers offers the first extensive empirical study of commercial lawmaking within the United Nations. It shows who makes law for the world, how they make it, and who comes out ahead.
Using extensive and unique data, the book investigates three episodes of lawmaking between the late 1990s and 2012. Through its original socio-legal orientation, it reveals dynamics of competition, cooperation and competitive cooperation within and between international organizations, including the UN, World Bank, IMF and UNIDROIT, as these IOs craft international laws.
Global Lawmakers proposes an original theory of international organizations that seek to construct transnational legal orders within social ecologies of lawmaking. The book concludes with an appraisal of creative global governance by the UN in international commerce over the past fifty years and examines prospective challenges for the twenty-first century.
PATHS of International law 