Non-State Actors in International Law: A Rejoinder to Professor Thirlway

That we consider the state-based system as best representing the individual is the product of a particular world view. A ‘naturalized myth’ renders inevitable the link between the physicality of the observable landscape and the state as a means of organizing a polity. This myth lingers on in international legal scholarship, although it has been debunked in other disciplines, notably in critical political geography. (Public) international lawyers can learn from their brethren in other disciplines and problematize the territorial state as a contingent political concept. Awareness of the social production of space may allow lawyers to imagine practices of resistance to the spatial status quo, in particular rights of non-state actors in the production of international law, alongside states, and obligations and responsibilities of non-state actors, especially where states have proved unable to properly assume roles of protection vis-à-vis individuals under their formal jurisdiction.

     

Non-State Actors: Carving out a Space in a State-Centred International Legal System

States have captured the imagination of international legal scholars, to the extent that for a variety of non-state actors (NSAs), statehood may appear to be the ultimate prize. This contribution sheds some light on how the epistemic community has come to venerate the state as the structural embodiment of politico-legal order, as ‘the hero’ in international law narratives and how, nevertheless, NSAs have been allowed to carve out a space for themselves. It is argued that in spite of NSAs’ gradual emancipation, to this very day, the presence of the state continues to loom large in discussions on international legal subjectivity.

     

The Priority of Participation: A Friendly Response to Professor Gargarella

A response to Roberto Gargarella’s review of Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury, by Albert W. Dzur.     

The Ethics of Corporate Legal Strategy: A Response to Professor Mayer

In this issue of the American Business Law Journal, Professor Don Mayer continues an important conversation regarding the ethics of corporate legal strategy. 1 Addressing several of my published works, Mayer offers two primary criticisms: (1) the works are too sanguine with regard to the appropriate scope of the strategic decision to “breach‐and‐pay,” and (2) the works offer too little guidance for the well‐intentioned corporate executive. In this response, I briefly restate my views, address Mayer's two criticisms, and offer concluding remarks.     

Non-State Actors and Terrorism: Applying the Law of State Responsibility and the Due Diligence Principle

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Smuggling of Human Beings from a Human Rights Perspective: Obligations of Non-State and State Actors under International Human Rights Law

Although trafficking of human beings has been widely regardedas a human rights issue, little attention has been paid to humanrights aspects of smuggling as it is mainly characterised asfacilitation of illegal migration. The purpose of this articleis to demonstrate that smuggling of human beings equally raiseshuman rights concerns. The article begins by exploring the definitionsof trafficking and smuggling and their policy implications.It then highlights some human rights issues inherent in theact by examining its causes, process and consequences. It continueswith an analysis of human rights obligations imposed upon non-Stateand State actors. The fact that non-State actors are not helddirectly accountable under international human rights law pointsto an investigation of legal obligations imposed upon States,and this article examines an obligation to protect victims asan example.     

The Legitimacy of Law: A Response to Critics*

Abstract
In this paper, the author responds to the claim that his critique of legal positivism, based on an account of adjudication in South Ahica, misses its target because it ignores, first, the positivist thesis of judicial discretion and, secondly, the fact that positivism offers no account of judicial obligation. He argues that these theses expose a tension in positivism between its commitments to liberal individualism and to the supremacy of positive law, a tension which can be resolved only by situating positivism in its true context, the Hobbesian argument for the legitimacy of law. Following Dworkin, he advocates the practice-oriented common law tradition, one that makes the legitimacy of law a matter of standards already implicit in law which are best revealed in adjudication.     

The Effectiveness of Non-State Governance Schemes: A Comparative Study of Forest Certification in Norway and Sweden

During the last decade, we have seen the emergence, under the auspices of non-state authorities, of market-driven governance schemes for certification of forest holdings and eco-labelling of wood products. Do these schemes affect actual management practices and environmental protection in forestry? This article examines the effectiveness of forest certification in Norway and Sweden – two ecologically and politically similar countries, but with different certification schemes. It is found that certification processes in both countries have resulted in high participation in certification schemes, high market penetration by certified forest organisations, and reduced conflict prevalence over forestry practices. Although forest certification seems to have modified on-the-ground practices in ways that lead to less environmental deterioration of forests, we still know too little about forest certification’s environmental impact and efficacy as a problem-solving instrument. More research is therefore urged in these areas.