On December 10

On this day in ...
... 1931, the Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on Jane Addams; she was a co-winner with Nicholas Murray Butler. Nobel Committee Chair Halvdan Koht said in his presentation speech:

(credit)

'America helped – perhaps it would be more correct to say compelled – Europe to create a League of Nations which would provide a firm basis for peaceful coexistence among nations. It was a crushing blow that America herself did not join this organization, and without doubt her failure to do so contributed largely to the failure of the League of Nations to live up to expectations. We still see too much of the old rivalries of power politics. Had the United States joined, she would have been a natural mediator between many of the conflicting forces in Europe, for America is more interested in peace in Europe than in lending her support to any particular country.
'It must be said, however, that the United States is not the power for peace in the world that we should have wished her to be. She has sometimes let herself drift into the imperialism which is the natural outcome of industrial capitalism in our age. In many ways she is typical of the wildest form of capitalist society, and this has inevitably left its mark on American politics.
'But America has at the same time fostered some of the most spirited idealism on earth.'

A longtime advocate of peace, suffrage, and measures to alleviate poverty, Addams was emblematic of that idealism – of "the work which women can do peace fraternity among nations," Koht continued. But Addams, who was then 71 years old, was admitted to a hospital in Baltimore on this day in 1931, and so was unable to attend the ceremony in Oslo, Norway. She would die 4 years later in the city where she had long lived, Chicago. We IntLawGrrls honor her as a transnational foremother.

(Prior December 10 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

Again with the Nobel gauntlet

Gauntlets cast on the ground before England's King Richard II

The European Union is the latest to have a gauntlet cast in its path.
Yesterday's announcement in Oslo that the EU had won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize included these words:

'The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.
'... Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.

'... The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.'

These rosy paragraphs call to mind a release 3 years ago, when the same committee bestowed the same prize on President Barack Obama, citing "his extraordinary efforts," in his initial 9 months in office, "to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I wrote then that the award was deserved, and listed the administration's sundry efforts to mend diplomatic fences. Yet there's no question that the prize threw a gauntlet Obama's way – a challenge to stay the path of peace. In a fascinating article published in this month's Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis quoted Obama's reaction to the prize:

"'It’s one of the most shocking things that has happened in all of this. And I immediately anticipated that it would cause me problems.'"

(credit Susan Walsh/AP photo)

The president, who had been making ready to send more troops to Afghanistan, responded by tossing the glove back at the Europe-based committee. In the Nobel Lecture delivered when he accepted the prize (right), Obama drew on just war theory, declaring:

'We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.' 

Dilemma likewise is present with yesterday's award.
Europe's recession has spurred harsh measures in some eurozone countries, like Ireland, and stiff opposition in others, like Greece. Tensions have given rise to slurs one would have hoped never again to hear: a German colleague's 2011 reference to others of the EU's 27 countries by a certain acronym – PIGS – still grates. Even within countries, there is unrest, as a recent New York Times story illustrated. And as Le Monde pointed out yesterday, it's to be noted that the country that plays host to this Nobel committee, Norway, has chosen not to join the European Union.
To its credit, the yesterday's Nobel release acknowledged this. "The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest," the statement said. It expressed hope that by this award the committee could train "focus on what it sees as the EU's most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights."
It is for Europe now to decide what to do with its gauntlet.

On September 25

On this day in ...
... 1972 (40 years ago today), by a vote of 53.5% to 46.5%, Norwegian voters rejected a plan for membership in the European Community. A referendum in 1994 failed by a similarly narrow margin; accordingly, Norway remains as one of Western Europe's few nonmembers of the European Union, successor to the EC. Nevertheless, as detailed at the Norway EU Mission website, Norway has ties to the EU and is a member of some discrete treaties, such as the Schengen Agreement on border controls, as well as a trade agreement to which Liechtenstein and Iceland also belong.

(Prior September 25 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

Go On! Victims & the ICC, in Oslo

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

Marking the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will be a seminar entitled Societal Reintegration of Victims of Core International Crimes, to be held June 7, 2012, in Oslo, Norway. The event's sponsored by the Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law and further supported by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Faculty of Law, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo.
Organizers write:

'[P]articipation in criminal proceedings may have little if any effect on the reintegration of victims in society. Reparations may assist victims during the process of transition that societal reintegration entails, but only to a limited extent. Full reintegration entails a much broader spectrum of normalization in the lives of victims: it requires a return to work or education, the housing market, family structures, civil society engagement, and social inclusion. The process has a significant socio-psychological dimension. What are the concrete needs of victims for successful reintegration? What are the relevant limitations of the ICC's current mandates regarding victim participation, assistance and reparations? How far does the responsibility of the international community extend? Is there a need for national regulation to foster the societal reintegration of victims of core international crimes?'

Among the persons scheduled to speak: ICC Prosecutor-Elect Fatou Bensouda; M. Cherif Bassiouni, Emeritus Professor of Law at DePaul University in Chicago; Norwegian State Secretary Gry Larsen; Norwegian Ambassador Anniken Ramberg Krutnes; Jasminka Džumhur, Ombudsperson of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Nora Sveaass, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Oslo; and Maria Luisa Martinod-Jacome, Chief of the ICC's Victims and Witnesses Unit.
Full program and details on registration here.

On March 9

On this day in ...
... 1952 (60 years ago today) , the 1st woman to serve as an ambassador in the modern era died in Moscow, then the capital of the Soviet Union. She'd been born Alexandra Mikhailovna Domontovich 79 years earlier in St. Petersburg, capital of imperial Russia, to a mother of Finnish ancestry who'd divorced in order to marry Alexandra's father, an officer in the Russian military who held liberal political views. Educated and well traveled, the daughter married in 1893, in her early 20s. Alexandra Kollontai (left) began reading radical populist and Marxist tracts and writing fiction during her pregnancy. She became a revolutionary – 1st, a Menshevik, then, a Bolshevik – and in 1919, Europe's 1st woman government minister. That led to appointment in 1923 as the Soviet Ambassador to Norway, a 1st; later, she would be posted to Mexico, to Sweden, and to the delegation of the League of Nations. (photo credit) "Mme Kollontai," as The New York Times called her, was an advocate of sexual liberation and gender equality; controversy met publication of her book Red Love (1926). Kollontai's writings would inspire feminists in the late 20th century. According to another website, "She was the only major critic of the Soviet government that Joseph Stalin did not have executed."

(Prior March 9 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

Write On! "Beyond States" in Paris

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers)

From Dr. Birgit Schlütter, our colleague at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo, comes news that papers "on the interaction between authorities at different levels" are being sought for a spring 2012 workshop in France.
It's the 3d International Workshop on Authority Beyond States, sponsored by AUSTAT, the ongoing authority-beyond-states project in which Birgit and others are involved. The workshop will be held May 3 and 4, 2012, at the Centre franco-norvégien en sciences sociales et humaines in Paris.
Organizers write:

The exercise of authority by international institutions raises a number of puzzling challenges across the disciplines that study the international. Recent history has seen a substantial increase in the number of international institutions, the claims to authority of which may rival not only the traditional bailiwick of sovereign states, but also the authority of other partially overlapping international institutions. How are those clashes of authority and frictions between actors resolved, if at all? How do the various subjects addressed by international authority – such as governments, corporations, NGOs, individuals, as well as international institutions themselves – respond? Even though conflicts of authority is a problem that political and legal practice and theory have had to deal with for centuries, new international institutional frameworks challenge established solutions to such problems, both in practice and in theory.
For example, recent contributions in international legal theory raise questions about interaction between the national and the international. But constitutionalism, pluralism or global public law approaches often concentrate on the international, while guiding principles, like subsidiarity or federalism, are yet to be analysed in more detail. Likewise, research in political science on multilevel, global governance raise questions about how the agents involved resolve conflicts of competence and jurisdiction not just between different levels, but also among international institutions themselves. Relatedly, while much recent political theory starts from the assumption that states are being challenged in their traditional mandate and capacity to govern, the resulting calls for international institutional reform suggest new puzzles about how to settle clashes of authority in lieu of sovereignty.

They invite submissions in the disciplines of international and comparative constitutional law, political science, international relations, and political theory, that address the exercise of authority by international institutions. Of particular interest are papers dealing with the vertical interplay between international institutions and domestic authorities and the horizontal interplay between different international institutions. Empirical, theoretical, conceptual, and normative analyses all are welcomed
Interested persons should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words, plus a short biography, via the online form available here. Deadline for submissions is January 15, 2012. Participants whose papers are selected will be reimbursed for travel and accommodation expenses.
Details here.

On October 20

On this day in ...
... 1921 (90 years ago today), the Convention relating to the Non-Fortification and Neutralisation of the Aaland Islands was concluded in Geneva, Switzerland. At issue was Åland, the group of islands in the circle at right. (map credit) Inhabitants are ethnically Swedish; however, for historical reasons that Dr. Teija Tiilikainen (right), Director of the Finnish Institute for International Affairs, detailed in her study entitled "Åland in European security policy," the islands nonetheless were located within the political boundaries of Finland. Earlier in 1921, a commission appointed by the League of Nations had ruled that Åland would remain part of Finland but would enjoy significant autonomy. This treaty followed, as a means to international guarantees that Åland would be neutral and demilitarized. The 1921 treaty has 10 states parties: Britain, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland, and Sweden. As our colleague Edith Brown Weiss noted in "Legacies of Louis B. Sohn: The United Nations Charter and International Environmental Law," 16 Willamette J. Int’l & Dispute Res. 212, 219 (2008), the Åland Convention played a key role in the drafting of U.N. Charter Article 51, which concerns states' use of force in self-defense.

(Prior October 20 posts are here, here, here, and here.)

Terrorism in Oslo: overview of legal issues

(Honored to welcome back alumna Cecilia Marcela Bailliet, who contributes this guest post)

We at my home institution, the University of Oslo Law Faculty, are very moved by the expressions of sympathy extended by so many IntLawGrrls in reaction to the horrific acts of terrorism in Oslo last week.
Right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik bombed government buildings in central Oslo, killing 8 persons, and then proceeded to assassinate 68 persons (the majority of them youths) at a Labour Party youth camp in Utøya.
It has been reported that Breivik sought to eliminate the next generation of Labour Party leaders, as he held them responsible for promoting multiculturalism and flexible immigration. In fact, however, the Labour Party had supported restrictive amendments to the immigration law that curtailed family reunification significantly.
On that day in Utøya, several youths saved their own lives by swimming away from the island, hiding in the forest and among the grottos, or playing dead. There were many acts of heroism conducted by private individuals, who saved the children by plucking them from the water in boats.
The police were delayed 90 minutes, in part due to the diversion of the bomb. They arrested Breivik and he is currently being held in detention. The people of Oslo have filled the streets of the city with flowers and held a peaceful gathering of 200,000, holding roses in affirmation of the country’s core values of openness and democracy (above; credit).
Due to the amount of inquiries since last week's event, our research fellow, Nils Christian Langtvedt, has prepared an overview of the legal criminal system and legal issues related to the prosecution of Breivik. With thanks to Nils for his contribution, we reprint it in full here:

The Legal Process
At the first level, the judge will have two lay judges. In complicated cases the court will be composed of two judges and three expert lay judges.
The victims are not parties to the case, nevertheless they may serve as witnesses and tell their stories. After judgment is delivered, an appeal may be lodged within 14 days. The Appeals Court will consider whether there has been an error in the handling of the case, such as whether the establishment of guilt or the punishment is incorrect. The appeals court is composed of three judges, sometimes four, and other cases are subject to a ten person jury. Further appeal to the Supreme Court is possible. The judgment of the Supreme Court is final and may only be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

Pre-Trial Detention
Detention may be pursued if the authorities believe that it is necessary to investigate the case. The purpose of the detention is to prevent the accused from tampering with the evidence or commit another crime. Detention is not considered to be a criminal punishment, rather a coercive procedural method in criminal cases.
If the Court decides to detain the accused, it sets forth the time limit for such detention. This period will not normally be longer than 4 weeks, but it may be extended by up to 4 weeks at a time. The Court can under certain circumstances establish a longer period of detention, and in the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the Court granted the state’s request for 8 weeks detention.
A ban on reception of letters and visitors is possible, as well as a ban on newspapers, and isolation from other inmates. The Court set the isolation period for Anders Behring Breivik at 4 weeks. The accused has a right to private oral and written communication with his defender.

Detention
Detention is a punishment that can be pursued in the alternative of incarceration. It is pursued in cases involving serious crimes with a high risk of recidivism. Detention is conducted within penal system and is not subject to time limits. An order of detention shall establish the time period that normally will not extend past 15 years and cannot surpass 21 years. The minimum period of detention shall not be over 10 years. If the authorities consider the individual so dangerous that his release would pose a risk to society , the Court may extend the detention period up to 5 years at a time. There is no maximum limit for extensions.
In theory, the accused may spend the rest of his life in detention, pursuant to Court orders extending his detention 5 years at a time.
Anders Behring Breivik is being charged with violating the terrorism provisions of the penal code which carry a penalty of 21 years incarceration.
Furthermore, the prosecutors are considering pursuing a charge of violation of crimes against humanity which carry a maximum penalty of 30 years incarceration. This is a less plausible charge. The crime refers to actions by a State, organization connected to a state, or a paramilitary organization. It is unlikely that the Norwegian provision may be applied to an individual’s act without a relation to a larger organization.

What if he is found insane?
In order to be criminally punished, the individual must be found to be sane at the time of the commission of the crime. Breivik is subject to court-appointed psychiatric evaluation to determine whether or not he is psychotic. If he is found to be considered insane at the time of the commission of the crime, he may be committed to a psychiatric institution if it is considered necessary for the protection of the society. This type of detention is not subject to time limits, but the law requires that the Court review the case regularly in order to establish whether there is a risk of recidivism.

Write On! Møse tribute

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers)

Papers are being sought for a volume in honor of Judge Erik Møse (near left), longtime member of the Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda -- its President from 2003 to 2007. He was named a Justice of Norway's Supreme Court in 2008. Møse's also served as legal adviser in the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and as a part-time lecturer in human rights.
Organizers request papers between 5,000 and 8,000 words, dealing with the following areas:
Public international law;
► International humanitarian law;
► International human rights law;
► International law and internal constitutional law;
► European law on human rights; and
► Norwegian law on human rights.
Deadline for submissions is August 31, 2011. The full call for papers is here; questions may be directed to Roland Adjovi, Academic Director of Arcadia University in Arusha, Tanzania, at adjovir@arcadia.edu or to Jean-Pele Fomete, Registrar of the U.N. Dispute Tribunal in Nairobi, Kenya, at jean-pele.fomete@unon.org.

Write On! "Sustainable Companies"/Oslo

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers)

Thanks to our colleague Beate Sjåfjell, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oslo, Norway, who sends word of an interesting conference for which papers are now being sought.
Entitled Towards Sustainable Companies: Identifying New Avenues, the conference will be held at the Oslo Faculty of Law (also the home institution of IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Cecilia Marcela Bailliet) on August 29 and 30, 2011. The conference schedule, conference invitation and call for papers are available here.
The conference of a Sustainable Companies Project, in which, Beate (right) writes, "an international team of researchers aims to find out how to integrate the overarching goal of sustainable development and especially its environmental dimension in the decision making in companies."
This summer's conference will have 3 main sessions:
► Setting the Stage
► Presenting New Research
► Discussing the Way Forward
More info about the conference schedule on our website.
The call for papers is for the parallel sessions on the 2d day and for poster presentations for the duration of the conference. Beate writes:
We are looking for papers that will contribute to a cross-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional approach and are open for all proposals that analyse issues within any of these broad topics:
► The assumption of the limited effectiveness of external regulation of corporate environmental behaviour.
► The hypothesis of the necessity of integrating environmental sustainability into the operation of companies.
► Methods and models for incorporation of sustainability into company decision-making.
The first deadline is soon: May 2, 2011.
Conference registration for the conference will close on August 1, 2011.
For more information, contact Beate at b.k.sjafjell@jus.uio.no.

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

[T]he Grand Chamber's judgment exposes flaws in the current European asylum regime. ... [E]stablished to reduce 'asylum shopping' and ensure minimum standards of protection to asylum seekers across the European Union, [it] is based on a presumption of equality and cooperation among safe countries. For geopolitical reasons, [there is] an unbalanced burden-sharing among the various European countries.
The judgment acknowledges those challenges, yet underlines that neither uneven burden-distribution (Greece) nor a state's minimalist reaading of the Dublin Regulation (Belgium) absolves Member States of their responsibilities vis-à-vis the Convention or other applicable international treaties ....

-- Tom Syring, co-chair of the International Refugee Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law and member of Norway's Immigration Appeals Board, in an ASIL Insight written in his personal capacity. Syring analyzed the judgment that the European Court of Human Rights (right) issued this January in M.S.S. v. Belgium & Greece. An asylum case, M.S.S. unfolded within the framework of the Common European Asylum System -- launched in 1999 and better known as CEAS -- as well as the 2003 Dublin Regulation that implements CEAS. A 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court ruled that both respondent countries had violated rights of the asylee-applicant under Article 3 (banning inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (guaranteeing an effective remedy) of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Belgium was faulted for having returned the applicant to his 1st state of entry -- Greece -- without considering that there he might endure the poor living conditions and risk of refoulement to his native Afghanistan. Greece, meanwhile, was held to account for the possibility of such risks and for the delays in providing the remedy of asylum. By Syring's telling, the judgment appears to place a significant, affirmative responsibility on member states -- and thus is well worth a read for international lawyers in many fields beyond that of asylum law.

On November 28

On this day in ...
... 1994, in what the BBC called "a blow for Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland" (left), voters for a 2d time rejected Norwegian membership in the European Union. Turnout was high -- 80% -- and the margin of victory was nearly 5 percentage points. After the 1st loss, she had resigned; this time she stayed on, waiting another 2 years before resigning as Norway's leader. Thereafter, from 1998 to 2003, Dr. Brundtland, a physician, was the Director-General of the World Health Organization. Norway remains outside the EU to this day.

(Prior November 28 posts are here, here, and here.)

On July 31

On this day in ...

... 1964, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. Margaret Joy Tibbetts to serve as U.S. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Norway. Tibbetts presented her credentials on October 6 of the same year, and left the post on May 23, 1969. During that tenure she would "escor[t] Martin Luther King, Jr. and his family when he received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in 1964." She also was quoted in The New York Times story announcing King's award:

As an American and representative of the American people, I want to express joy and gratitude that one of my fellow countrymen has been awarded this prize.

Tibbetts had been on August 26, 1919, in Bethel, Maine, and earned a Ph.D. at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. In 1944 she became a career officer of the U.S. Foreign Service, serving in Washington, London, Brussels -- and eventually as officer-in-charge of the consulate general at what was then Leopoldville, Belgian Congo (today, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo). In 1971 she received the Distinguished Honor Award (ribbon at right), "the highest decoration bestowed by the United States Department of State," and retired from government service. She became a professor, teaching foreign policy, at Bowdoin College near her hometown. Miss Tibbetts, as her obituary referred to her, died in Maine this past April 25, at age 90.

(Prior July 31 posts are here, here, and here.)

On June 10

On this day in ...
... 1940 (70 years ago today), King Haakon VII and his Norwegian government announced that they had "found it necessary to remove their residence outside the country." The exile to England, which would last for the duration of World War II, signaled defeat at the hands of a 2-month-old "brutal invasion" by Nazi Germany. (credit for 1940 photo of Norwegian houses ablaze following German attack) In an editorial on this day, The New York Times wrote that Norway's new status as an "occupied territory" of Germany "sinks into insignificance beside the titanic struggle before the gates of Paris."

(Prior June 10 posts are here, here, and here.)

Kampala Update: Stocktaking, Aggression

(Another in IntLawGrrls' series of Kampala Conference posts)

KAMPALA, Uganda – I last provided an update on the International Criminal Court Review Conference at the conclusion of the stocktaking discussions. Yesterday, several documents (available here) related to the stocktaking events were adopted:

► A resolution on the impact of the Rome Statute system on victims and affected communities,

► A resolution on complementarity,

► A moderator’s summary on the peace and justice discussion,

► A declaration on cooperation, and

► A summary of the roundtable discussion on cooperation.

Enforcement of sentences

As well, a resolution on strengthening enforcement of sentences – an initiative of Norway – was adopted. This resolution recognizes that there may be states that are willing to accept persons sentenced by the ICC, but which cannot enter into sentence enforcement agreements with the ICC because their prisons do not meet "widely accepted international treaty standards governing the treatment of prisoners," as required by Article 103 of the Rome Statute. The resolution encourages other states, and international and regional organizations, mechanisms or agencies, to cooperate with the interested state to help it bring its prisons up to international standards. The idea is that, if there is more cooperation among states in this respect, more states will be able to enforce ICC sentences, and convicted individuals will be able to serve sentences in prisons in a region nearer their homes. To date, the ICC has entered into sentence enforcement agreements with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and the United Kingdom.

Aggression

The beginning of this week marked a turning point in the Review Conference. Attention is now squarely focused on the negotiations respecting the crime of aggression, about which IntLawGrrls have posted frequently this past year. Two days in a row, the Chair has issued a Conference Room Paper on the crime of aggression, putting forward language on the exercise of jurisdiction gleaned from state comments and views. The June 7 Conference Room Paper incorporated aspects of a proposal made by Argentina, Brazil and Switzerland. Canada and Slovenia have also put forward proposals on the exercise of jurisdiction. (Many documents available here.) Another Conference Room Paper might be issued today, based on yesterday’s country statements made in response to these two proposals. The Chair of those negotiations, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein, Jordan's Ambassador to the United States and nonresident Ambassador to Mexico, expects that they will become quite intense as the end of the conference draws near. Accordingly, he asked all delegations to ensure that they are represented on Friday, even if the Review Conference goes late into the night (he said this because some participants have flights on Friday).

Additional events

Finally, I wanted to mention that there have been a number of fantastic side-events taking place at the Review Conference:

► IntLawGrrl Susana SáCouto has already blogged about the release of the report on “Case-based Reparations at the International Criminal Court” by the War Crimes Research Office at American University Washington College of Law.

► Another side-event to take note of is the launch by the ICC and the International Bar Association of the Uganda-specific “Calling African Female Lawyers” campaign. This national campaign, which is a part of a broader international six-month campaign, aims to encourage experienced female lawyers from Uganda to play a crucial role at the ICC by representing victims or defendants in proceedings before the Court. Over the next six months, applications from qualified African female lawyers – including Ugandan lawyers - will be given priority.

Go On! "Creation of International Law" & network of women intlaw experts

(It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome back alumna Cecilia Marcela Bailliet, who contributes this Go On! guest post)

I have the pleasure of announcing a conference I'm organizing, entitled The Creation of International Law: An Explanation of Normative Innovation, Contextual Application, and Interpretation in a Time of Flux. It will be held in Oslo, Norway, on August 6 and 7, 2010, and is hosted by the Research group on Internationalisation of Law and the Department of Public and International Law at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law, in cooperation with the Rights, Individuals, Culture and Society research group and the Natural Resources Law research group.

Our intention is to create a network for women scholars and practitioners to support their engagement in international public law.

We've invited women scholars from across the globe to present papers addressing challenges in relation to the creation of international law from theoretical or contextual perspectives. Papers to be presented will discuss sources, actors, law-making, interpretation, dispute resolution, and practice in selected fields of international law. Analyses will elaborate on how international law, at the national, regional, and international levels, is affected by economic crisis, trade and investment instability, war, forced migration, international criminal networks and climate change.

Details here; for further information contact me at cecilia.bailliet@jus.uio.no.

On January 27

On this day in ...

... 1950 (50 years ago today), by Executive Order 10099, U.S. President Harry S. Truman declared that the mutual defense plan of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was in effect. (credit for photo of Truman signing NATO treaty in July 1949) The move that prompted diplomats from Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and Netherlands, and Norway to meet at the international conference room of the State Department in Washington, D.C., in order to sign bilateral agreements with the United States that enabled them to receive U.S. military matériel. The total cost of this military aid was set at $1 billion.

(Prior January 27 posts are here and here.)

On August 13

On this day in ...
… 1762, Anne Josephe Théroigne de Méricourt (right), French revolutionary and feminist, was born in Marcourt, Luxembourg province, in modern Belgium. (image credit) She called for equality with men with an eloquence that was vigrous even for the National Assembly of the day. She demanded that women be permitted to arm themselves and to enlist in the army:

Fellow women citizens, why should we not enter into rivalry with the men? . . . And we too would wish to earn a civic crown and court the honor of dying for a liberty which is dearer perhaps to us than it is to them, since the effects of despotism weigh still more heavily upon our heads than upon theirs. . . . let us open a list of French Amazons; and let all who truly love their Fatherland write their names there.

... 1905, Norwegians voted overwhelmingly -- 368,208 to 184 -- in favor of dissolving the union of Norway and Sweden. This followed by a couple months a similar action in Sweden's legislature (prior post), and dissolution took effect later in the year.

(Prior August 13 posts are here and here.)

On June 17

On this day in ...
... 1924 (85 years ago today), Althea Simmons (left), who from 1979 until her death in 1990 would lead the Washington, D.C., branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and so serve as the NAACP's chief lobbyist in the capital, was born in Shreveport, Louisiana. She was a graduate of that state's Southern University, of the University of Illinois, and of Howard University School of Law in Washington. According to her obituary, Simmons

successfully lobbied for the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, the creation of a holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., sanctions against South Africa and the subsequent Congressional override of President Ronald Reagan's veto.

After Simmons' death, a tribute to her was read into the U.S. Senate record.

... 1944 (65 years ago today), the birthday of independence leader Jón Sigurðsson, Iceland became independent from Denmark and formed a republic. This day is celebrated every year as Iceland National Day. The Old Covenant of 1262 had established the sovereignty of Norway and ended the independent republic in Iceland. Late in the 14th century, Iceland became a Danish dominion. In 1918, by the Act of Union agreement, Iceland was declared a free and independent state, but the Danish king continued to function as king of Iceland. In a May 1944 referendum, Iceland voted to end the union. (credit for 2007 photo of national day procession in Reykjavík, Iceland)

(Prior June 17 posts are here and here.)

On June 14

On this day in …
… 1926, Mary Cassatt (left), American Impressionist painter and printmaker, died at Château de Beaufresne, near Paris. (photo credit) She is known for her images of the social and private lives of women, with particular emphasis on the intimate bonds between mothers and children. Cassatt studied art at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia. In 1874, after traveling in Europe, she settled in Paris and had a work accepted at the Salon. In 1877, she made the acquaintance of Edgar Degas, who would become a colleague and mentor to her. Throughout her life she supported the Impressionist movement, and helped it gain popularity in the United States. Cassatt's career and legacy were reviewed here by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Judith Weingarten.
… 1907, Norway (flag at right) granted some women the right to vote in parliament, as well as the right to stand for elections in Norway. In 1901, the country had granted municipal suffrage to some women who met certain wealth requirements. In 1907, full parliamentary suffrage was granted to the 300,000 women who already had municipal suffrage. In 1910, municipal suffrage was made universal. In 1913, general suffrage for women was granted in Norway. (photo credit)

(Prior June 14 posts are here and here.)