‘Oslo Recommendations for Enhancing the Legitimacy of International Courts’: international judges take a stand on current challenges facing the international justice system

In collaboration with Andreas Føllesdal and Geir Ulfstein of PluriCourts

Fifteen judges from thirteen international courts recently drafted and finalized a set of recommendations aimed at reinforcing the legitimacy of institutions of international justice. These were the participants of the 2018 session of the Brandeis Institute for International Judges (BIIJ), organized collaboratively in June 2018 by the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life, of Brandeis University, and the PluriCourts Center for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order, a center of excellence of the University of Oslo Faculty of Law.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

BIIJ 2018 participants

Over the course of the BIIJ, participants examined carefully how some international courts are currently experiencing ‘pushback’, be it from member states, civil society groups, or even their own parent bodies. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body, for example, finds itself at a critical juncture. The United States has recently blocked all new appointments to its seven-member bench, which will soon bring its important trade dispute resolution work to a standstill. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has heard noise about withdrawal by some member states in response to action by its Prosecutor to examine crimes upon their territories.  More generally, international courts and tribunals feel a waning of the late 20th century enthusiasm and support for international justice institutions. BIIJ judges clearly realize that a proactive response on the part of institutions may help them to negotiate current conditions.

The Recommendations, which BIIJ participants drafted and endorsed in their personal capacities, articulate relevant policies and activities in five arenas: nomination and selection of international judges; ethics and judicial integrity; efficiency of proceedings; transparency of proceedings and access to judicial output; and role of judges in outreach and interactions with the public.

We find it first of all important that the fifteen international judges acknowledge the legitimacy challenges facing international courts. It is also significant that the judges believe that both courts and members of their benches have a responsibility to address these issues, and that such responsibility goes beyond what is the ‘primary work of international judges’, i.e. to ‘produce well-reasoned and timely judgments’.

In the section devoted to the nomination and selection of international judges, the Recommendations emphasize the importance of having multiple candidates for judicial vacancies and the need to consider diverse candidates. The document also broaches the question, perhaps publicly for the first time, of establishing age limits for judicial nominees to ensure the ongoing fitness of international judges over the length of their terms. A final provision in this section addresses the need for nomination and selection authorities to ensure that international judges may carry out their work with independence and in security.

The section on ethics and judicial integrity deals with judicial culture in the court as well as ethical issues. It is notable that the judges felt a need to emphasize that dissenting and separate opinions should ‘be delivered with restraint and formulated in respectful language so as not to undermine the authority of the court’.

The provision that ‘[e]ach international court should have a code of judicial ethics whose provisions are well known to judges’ would seem obvious and unnecessary to mention. Nevertheless, some BIIJ 2018 participants reported that while their institutions may have already formalized a set of ethical guidelines, new members of the bench may not be introduced to them nor even be aware of their existence. The guidelines then lose their positive potential.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

International judges drafting the Oslo Recommendations at BIIJ 2018

It is also unusual for international courts, faced with alleged ethical violations by a judge, to appoint ‘an external committee… composed of individuals with relevant knowledge and experience to conduct the investigation and make recommendations’. Some newer institutions have instituted such measures, and this inspired BIIJ 2018 participants to examine the benefits of such an approach. This provision of the Oslo Recommendations thus underscores the wisdom of not confining consideration of potentially serious ethical breaches to internal procedures behind closed doors.

Other provisions of the Recommendations address issues that not infrequently lead to public criticism of international courts. International judicial proceedings may be inefficient and overly lengthy; their judges may take on too much outside work to the detriment of their judicial responsibilities; proceedings cannot always be followed remotely by interested parties; judgments and other judicial output may not be posted or archived in such a manner as to be easily accessible by scholars, other courts, and the larger public; and messaging and outreach by international courts sometimes suffer from inaccuracy and inconsistency.

The Oslo Recommendations for Enhancing the Legitimacy of International Courts represent a first step toward initiating reforms in institutions of international justice that might help them to secure their standing on the world stage. Significantly, this first step has been made collectively by individuals whose positions serve as the fulcrum upon which the entire international justice system balances.

You may read the full text of the Oslo Recommendations here.

 

Modelling the rules of targeting

Maid of Orleans Jan Matejko

Jan Matejko “Maid of Orleans”

The rules of targeting of international humanitarian law play a pivotal role in protecting civilians. They achieve this by requiring military commanders to take appropriate steps when planning and executing military operations to mitigate danger to civilians. Yet, there is little guidance on how parties to the conflict apply the rules of targeting on the battlefield. Consequently, the task of Non-Governmental Organizations to hold parties to the conflict to account for breaches of the rules is extremely difficult. In the course of studying state practice on the rules of targeting I identified a number of trends which capture how commanders in all likelihood apply the rules of targeting to battlefield scenarios. A number of the findings challenge conventional views. This points to the fact that the debate concerning the rules of targeting continues to be necessary even though one can model how commanders apply the rules. I would like at this stage to share with you some of the conclusions I arrived at.

The principle of distinction requires attackers to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants on the one hand, and civilian objects and military objectives on the other hand. The conventional view is contained in publications, such as the “Commentary to the Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Manual on Air and Missile Warfare.” It postulates that the degree of certainty the principle of distinction requires attackers to achieve is less than that entailed by the criminal law standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt.” However, it is concluded that the degree of required certainty is higher. The elements of available intelligence, urgency of acting, force security and the civilian harm which will result if the target is misidentified should each individually reinforce the conclusion that the target is a military objective in order for the attacker to be entitled to engage the target.

The rule of target verification requires the attacker to do everything “feasible” to verify that a chosen target is a military objective. Ian Henderson in his book “The Contemporary Law of Targeting: Military Objectives, Proportionality and Precautions in Attack Under Additional Protocol I” submits that the consideration of how many civilians will be killed if the target is misidentified and the likelihood of the target being a civilian object should play a role in a commander’s assessment of whether he or she is doing everything “feasible” to verify that the target is a military target. The examination of state practice reveals that commanders indeed balance the elements of the likelihood of harm to civilians occurring and the military advantage entailed in conducting further reconnaissance in assessing whether it is “feasible” to allocate additional resources to verifying the character of the target. They may additionally for policy reasons consider the number of civilians who will die if the target is mistakenly identified as having military character. The obligation to comply with the principle of distinction is one of the reasons why commanders do not view the magnitude of potential civilian harm as a core component of the rule of target verification. I was able to derive propositions capturing when commanders are likely to give greater weight either to the likelihood of civilian harm or to particular military considerations, such as the urgency of engaging the target.

Continue reading

A Double Standard for White Terrorists

Almost immediately after it emerged that a white supremacist had stabbed three men who were trying to prevent him from attacking Muslim women in a Portland train, killing two of them, efforts at mitigation began.

“We don’t know if he’s got mental health issues,” Sgt. Pete Simpson said in the first public statement about the May 26 incident. Added the perpetrator’s childhood friend, “All I have to say is I hope this brings attention to the need for mental health facilities and more outreach.” His mother struck a similarly apologetic note: “He’s always been spouting anti-establishment stuff but he’s a nice person.”

Inevitably, those close to the perpetrator tried to explain away the hate that drove this crime. Yet what this individual did was fundamentally a political act, and in a country where politicians are increasingly wary of condemning racially motivated violence. In his trial for the Charleston shooting, another white racist, Dylann Roof, made clear the real motives for his crime: “I don’t want anybody to think I did it because I have some kind of mental problem. I wanted to increase racial tension.”

An act of terror by a self-identifying Muslim would never have been treated as apologetically as have the Portland stabbings and the Charleston massacre. Compare these reactions to those following the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre. Why the double standard? Why do we excuse the racist hate that led the Portland stabbings and the Charleston shootings?

Among the most frightening aspects of the Portland stabbings is that the perpetrator, Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, was long known to police and others as someone who endorsed murderous acts. To his Facebook followers, Christian’s willingness to kill innocent people should come as no surprise. But the authorities turned a blind eye to the threats that fill Christian’s public posts.

As his Facebook posts demonstrate, Christian made numerous appearances at white supremacist rallies in recent months. He was a well-known member of the Portland community, not an outsider, an alien, or an immigrant. He delighted in his own notoriety, noting in one post how a local reporter called him “the Lizard King.”

On May 9, Christian wrote on his Facebook page (still online as of this writing): “I want a job in Norway cutting off the heads of people that Circumcize [sic] Babies….Like if you agree!!!” More than two dozen of Christian’s Facebook followers signified their approval. One vowed to set up a fund to support “Americas newest hero Jeremy Joseph Christian.”

Christian began verbally attacking two women on a train, one of whom was wearing a hijab. Police said he “began yelling various remarks that would best be characterized as hate speech toward a variety of ethnicities and religions.” When three men tried to intervene, he stabbed them. Two of them—Ricky John Best of Happy Valley, Oregon, 53, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche of Southeast Portland, 23—died from their injuries.

At a court appearance this week, Christian was defiant, saying, “You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism!”


Had Christian been deploying the rhetoric of ISIS on Facebook, he would have been under FBI surveillance. Why, then, are white supremacists allowed to threaten violence against innocents while authorities look the other way? Why are people still willing to make excuses when expressions of racist hate turn into racist action?

In stark contrast, Egyptian-American Tarek Mehanna was sentenced to seventeen years in prison exclusively on the basis of his association with jihadist ideology, and not for any specific act of violence. But whereas Mehanna was immediately incarcerated for his support of violence, Christian’s threats have been ignored, or tolerated, by the authorities. Like many white supremacists, the perpetrator of the Portland stabbings was regarded prior to his murders as merely a nuisance by authorities.

Like Christian, Mehanna supported an ideology that is associated with violence. Both ideologies must be condemned. Yet the point here is that Mehanna was imprisoned for his views, while white supremacists like Christian are all too often tolerated until blood is spilled.

The fight against racism is a battle that cannot be abdicated to others. It has poisoned this country and will continue to do so until white racism is taken as seriously as the terror that clothes itself in Islamic rhetoric.

I passed much of my adolescence on Portland’s streets. I attended poetry readings in Portland cafes and volunteered in soup kitchens, and hanging out in Powell’s, the country’s biggest bookstore. The violence of the past few days does not represent the Portland I know. However, it does represent a plausible future for a country increasingly driven by an ideology that must be actively resisted rather than silently condoned.

 

Cross-posted from The Progressive

Psychoanalysis & law at the Women’s March in Washington

It was amazing and exhilarating to be part of such a massive collective experience. We left my neighborhood in Northwest Washington DC early, about 8am. At that hour on a Saturday morning, my neighborhood was already buzzing with people on their way to the march. On Friday, inauguration day, I had gone out to see what was afoot. What I discovered on Friday was a dead zone. On any normal day my neighborhood is very busy; Connecticut Ave near the Woodley Park metro is normally crowded with people going about their day. On inauguration day it was nearly empty. A lonely traffic cop stood at the intersection, idle, with no worries about directing any traffic. I walked down to Dupont Circle and saw lots of people going into the Office Depot and then emerging with rolled up poster board carried under arms. They were clearly getting ready for Saturday. Then I walked over to the Washington DC Friends Meeting House which was holding a training session on non-violent interventions to public assaults. We rolled played several different scenarios of public aggression and how to intervene effectively.

On Saturday this training came in handy. While walking from the Union Station metro over to meet our friends, we passed by a large bus emblazoned with Trump campaign slogans. Vendors in front of the bus were hawking Trump sweatshirts, teeshirts, and hats. These vendors were clearly out of place, because the street was teaming with women carrying signs and wearing their distinctive knitted caps. I stopped to look at the merchandise and then suggested to the man in charge that yesterday, during the inauguration, was their better time to make sales and that today, Saturday, belonged to the Women’s March participants.

Continue reading

Read On! ‘Human Security and Human Rights under International Law: The Protections Offered to Persons Confronting Structural Vulnerability’

I am thrilled to post for the first time in IntLawGrrls and to share the publication of my book Human Security and Human Rights under International Law: The Protections Offered to Persons Confronting Structural Vulnerability (Hart Publishing, 2016).

This book considers the potential of human security as a protective tool within the international law of human rights. Indeed, it seems surprising given the centrality of human security to the human experience, that its connection with human rights had not yet been explored in a truly systematic way. The book attempts to address that gap in the literature and sustains that the human rights of persons, particularly those facing structural vulnerability, can be addressed more adequately if studied through the complementary lens of human security and not under human rights law alone. It takes both a legal and interdisciplinary approach, recognizing that human security and its relationship with human rights cuts across disciplinary boundaries.

Human security with its axis of freedom from fear, from want and from indignity, can more integrally encompass the inter-connected risks faced by individuals and groups in vulnerable conditions. At the same time, human rights law provides the normative legal grounding usually lacking in human security. International human rights norms, individualistic in nature and firstly enacted more than sixty years ago, present limits which translate into lack of protection for people globally. As a result, the collective and contextual conditions undergone by persons can be better met through the broader and more recent notion of human security, which emphasizes ‘critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats’, and accentuates socioeconomic vulnerabilities as authentic security concerns. Indeed, as signaled by Sadako Ogata, human security is ‘the emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities’.

The analysis follows a two-part approach. Firstly, it evaluates convergences between human security and all human rights – civil, political, economic, social and cultural –and constructs a general framework for thought and action, the ‘human security – human rights synergy’. Secondly, it goes on to explore the practical application of this framework in the law and case-law of UN, European, Inter-American and African human rights bodies in the thematic cores of 1) violence against women and girls (VAW); 2) undocumented migrants and other non-citizens such as asylum-seekers and refugees; converging in 3) a particular examination of the conditions of female undocumented migrants. In the last chapter, the book systematizes this evidence to reveal and propose added values of human security to human rights law; and inversely, it indicates how human rights standards/indicators can deliver a needed more precise, normatively grounded and operational conception of human security.

These ‘interpretative synergies’ offer promise for shifting the boundaries of international human rights law: in constructing integrative approaches to fill legal gaps, better prevention and addressing protectively collective threats, and –in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- creating an ‘enabling environment’ to fulfil all human rights, especially for those not only confronting isolated moments of risk or individual human rights violations, but rather conditions of structural vulnerability affecting their everyday lives. Continue reading

Write On! Read On! “Inter Gentes”: a new kind of international law journal

Yesterday a buzzing social event at McGill Faculty of Law marked the launch of a new peer reviewed international law journal – but rather than adding to the existing plethora of academic journals, Inter Gentes is breaking the mold and doing something truly exciting and innovative. And they welcome your submissions in many different, multi-media forms.

intergentes-logo

The name Inter Gentes represents the ethos of this journal, to consider international law not according to the traditional 19th Century conception of law between States, but rather as law between people. This goes far beyond a “transnational” or “transboundary” approach, and is broader than “legal pluralism” or “cosmopolitanism”. The intention is to create debate and interaction on the way in which international law affects individuals and peoples, and the way in which we affect international law.

To facilitate this debate, Inter Gentes is an open access online journal, with no paper print issues. This reduces the overheads for the team producing the bi-annual publication, but more importantly ensures true international accessibility.

Inter Gentes will be publishing articles in English, French and Spanish, all of which will be peer-reviewed by members of the star-studded Advisory Board, including Bruno Simma; Francois Crepeau, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants; Mark Drumbl; Lorie Graham; Sally Engel Merry; Jens Ohlin; Rene Provost; Juan Carlos Sainz Borgo and others. The expertise of the Advisory Board will guarantee the quality of the work published, but the real footwork will be undertaken by a dedicated team of students at McGill Faculty of Law, a faculty renowned for it’s commitment to linguistic and legal diversity, and which attracts students from all over the world.

As well as the peer-reviewed articles published in the bi-annual themed issues, Inter Gentes will have op-ed dialogues, encourage debate and dialogue among readers through interactive comments platforms, and provide multi-media content in the form of podcasts, images, posters and more. Since 2015 it has been creating ad-hoc content in the form of editorials, and it will continue this alongside it’s bi-annual issues.

inter-gentes-inaugural-cover

The inaugural edition has the theme “International Law and Peoples’ Resistance”, and it is testament to the commitment and ethos of this new journal that the articles included are written by authors from around the world, from perspectives as diverse as indigenous law and international law as colonialism; self determination as resistance; and global participation in global democracy.

The theme for next Spring is “(In)tangible Ownership in the International Sphere”, looking at diverse notions of property and land rights. The deadline for the Spring edition has now passed,  however the editorial team is happy to receive op-ed pieces on topics related to this theme.

Keep an eye out for this exciting new platform, which really is an expression of twenty-first century perspectives, dialogues, multi-media forms of knowledge dissemination and learning, and diverse identities. And let the editorial team know if you have something you’d like to submit – they  accept non-thematic articles on any area of international law year round on a rolling basis, which will be considered for ad-hoc publication, outside the publishing schedule for the theme issues

 

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

one-step-forward

Book cover, courtesy International Nuremberg Principles Academy. (Original: Montana Historical Society)

On 4 November 2016 in Nuremberg, at its annual forum commemorating the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Nuremberg Principles by the UN General Assembly, the International Nuremberg Principles Academy launched its first book, a volume of deterrence studies titled, Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The Deterrent Effect of International Criminal Tribunals. This volume comprises ten country studies (Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, DRC, Uganda, Darfur, Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire and Mali), as well as a chapter on methodology, and conclusions drawing from all the country studies, with recommendations for further action.

Two Steps Forward is notable in a number of respects. While various articles have addressed deterrence in international criminal law in some fashion, it is apparently the first volume that addresses the issue so comprehensively. It also ventures to offer conclusions on the question of deterrence based on quantitative and qualitative research, noting that nearly 20 years have passed since the ICTY and ICTR’s establishment, and nearly 15 since the ICC and Sierra Leone Special Court’s establishment. While the Nuremberg trials themselves arguably took several generations for their effects to be fully felt, enough time has passed that it is fair to begin to examine what has been the deterrent effect so far of international tribunals, and how that effect can be enhanced or improved.

The good news is that in all of the country situations surveyed, at least some deterrent effect was reported. The authors draw on quantitative factors first to assess whether overall criminality has risen or fallen, a fundamental baseline for asking whether crimes have thereafter been deterred. The authors draw on qualitative factors to assess perceptions of deterrence, in particular amongst perpetrators and potentially like-minded individuals, including members of militaries and rebel groups, political actors, diplomats and politicians, as well as academics, civil society members and victims. Perceptions of deterrence are as significant as objectively measurable deterrence; people act on their perceptions, for good or bad, and these actions can help determine whether further crimes will be committed. In all the situation countries surveyed, the authors found that while the international court or tribunal concerned had a deterrent effect, both objective and perceived, it proved difficult to sustain because the factors supporting it often fell apart. This is an important starting point for examining how to ensure that any hard-won deterrent effect is not ultimately lost. Continue reading

Reflections on ‘The Gendered Imaginaries of Crisis in International Law’ Agora @ the 2016 ESIL Annual Conference, Riga, Latvia

With many thanks to Emily Jones, currently a PhD researcher at SOAS, University of London, who authored this reflection and, along with IntLawgrrls Gina Heathcote, Loveday Hodson, and Bérénice Schramm, as well as Troy Lavers, organized the Gendered Imaginaries of Crisis Agora on behalf of the Feminism and International Law Interest Group of the European Society of International Law.

esil-2016On Friday 9th September, the Feminism and International Law Interest Group of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) held an agora entitled ‘The Gendered Imaginaries of Crisis in International Law.’ The agora session was initially inspired by Hilary Charlesworth’s provocative statement that ‘international lawyers revel in a good crisis. A crisis provides a focus for the development of the discipline and it also allows international lawyers the sense that their work is of immediate, intense relevance.’ In this vein, the agora aimed to disrupt mainstream interpretations and perspectives on crisis as well as remind attendees of the various ways in which gender is implicated in the narratives of crisis. (Agora participants pictured above, from left to right, Bérénice Schramm (chair), Marion Blondel, Dianne Otto, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales; Zeynep Kivilcim is pictured in the Skype screen at the top.)

The agora was bilingual (in both French and English). This bilingualism not only helped to disrupt the increasing dominance of the English language at ESIL but also allowed for a wider array of feminist perspectives to be considered.

The panel began with an intervention by IntLawGrrl Bérénice K. Schramm, the Agora Chair. Bérénice began with a reminder of the many ways in which crisis is utilised globally, not only by international lawyers to revel in but also as a moment for change and resistance, thus disrupting mainstream international legal views of crisis. She also highlighted the many elements of crisis which go unseen, including the sounds and images of crisis, showing pictures of women in Rojava engaging in radical democratic work and drawing on the work of German art collective Maiden Monsters to highlight both the existence of counter images to crises and sounds of crisis and the corollary fact that neoliberalism, from a feminist perspective, is, itself, a crisis.

Bérénice, in her introduction, also read an important statement regarding Turkey. One of the panellists, Zeynep Kivilcim, sadly, was unable to attend the agora in person and was forced to intervene via Skype. This was due to the current political situation in her country and the crack down by the government on academics and academic freedom. As a signatory to the ‘Academics for Peace’ petition‘Academics for Peace’ petition, Zeynep risks being interrogated daily. Bérénice reminded the agora participants of the terrible ongoing situation in Turkey and the need to remember the ways in which crises affect academic work and freedom.

The first paper presented was by Dianne Otto and was entitled ‘Feminist Aspirations and Crisis Law: Navigating Uncomfortable Convergences and New Opportunities.’ Dianne noted the normalisation of crisis in international discourse and the ways in which this spreading atmosphere of crisis has allowed for the expansion of emergency laws and rule by experts and technocrats who often favour neoliberal ends. Her paper went on to highlight the ways in which ‘gender panics’ are also caught up in international discourses on crisis, noting, for example, how the trafficking movement and the panic over preventing sex trafficking has been used, not only to deny women agency and the right to make their own sexual and economic decisions, but also to ignore the wider, structural issues which surround trafficking, including poverty and exploitative labour conditions (noting how the focus on trafficking also works to ignore other migrants). Continue reading

Introducing OLYMPE’s first collective book: “Féminisme(s) et droit international” (2016)

feminisme-s-et-droit-international-cover

A few months ago, OLYMPE, the network for francophone feminist studies in international law and relations, published its first collective opus. Entitled Féminisme(s) et droit international. Études du réseau Olympe (Éd. de la Société de Législation Comparée), this volume brings together, under the co-direction of Emmanuelle Tourme Jouannet, Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, Horatia Muir Watt and Hélène Ruiz Fabri, 14 chapters providing a valuable first overview of the state of feminist research in international law and international relations in French. All in all, a great addition to the critical canon of international law in French. As an important side note, OLYMPE is already preparing a call for a second volume on LGBTQIA/Queer approaches to international law. Said call should be issued in a few issues; stay tuned!

To order the book…

Continue reading

Introducing OLYMPE: Francophone Feminist Approaches to IL represent!

P1100700There is obviously no better place than the IntLawGrrls blog to introduce to the anglophone world the first research network for francophone feminist studies in international law, OLYMPE, and its recent first collective publication, released in March, Féminisme(s) et droit international. Études du réseau Olympe.

Founded in January 2014, OLYMPE is a research network gathering more than 80 scholars and practitioners with an interest in feminist approaches to international law in French. Thought broadly, OLYMPE aims at promoting transdisciplinary feminist, gender, LGBTQIA and queer studies in international law (and international relations) in the francophone world where, by contrast to the anglophone world, they are still unknown and institutionally underdeveloped, if not inexistent. Named after Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793), a prominent French feminist figure who used the law as a tool for activism, the network pursues a number of objectives through various events, research publications and scientific watch and diffusion. OLYMPE seeks to introduce feminist approaches to international law and international relations in the francophone world and engage in a critical discussion of it using the abundant francophone feminist tradition in order to contribute to new developments in the field, in French and in English. It also actively fosters an inclusive approach to gender at the normative and institutional levels in international law in order to reinforce social and economic equality of individuals notwithstanding their gender identity or sexual orientation: it therefore promotes gender as an explicit and inescapable element of international policy-making. Aware of the limits and obstacles generated by “gender mainstreaming”, OLYMPE wishes through its activities to question the global dimensions of what is nowadays called feminist governance. Last but not least, OLYMPE is an institutional platform around which a network of scholars, practitioners and any other professionals interested in those issues can organize in order to contribute to the implementation of the objectives listed above.

As the coordinator of OLYMPE, it is therefore my very pleasure to give you a first introduction to the network and its activities in the hope that you join it or share its existence around you (website; facebook). While being a francophone network, its members do not have to be French-speaking to join (although it might help as we do share some information in French); all in all, an interest in French-speaking feminist research in international law (and relations) suffices! OLYMPE is happy to relay any information regarding future conferences or calls in English or any other language, as long as it is related to feminist/women’s/gender/lgbtqia/queer studies in international law (and relations). To become a member or for any other query or communication, please feel free to get in touch with me via email (berenice.schramm@graduateinstitute.ch).

Continue reading