The Future of Women’s Engagement with International Law


I’ve just returned from sunny Brisbane, Australia, where I had the pleasure of participating in a two-day expert workshop hosted by IntLawGrrl Susan Harris Rimmer of Griffith University Law School (pictured left) and co-organized by Kate Ogg of the Australian National University College of Law (pictured below right).  True to the organizers’ description, the conference featured “the most excellent cast of characters a production could ever hope for.”  We were welcomed by Griffith Law Dean Penelope Mathew, a feminist international law professor (like an IntLawGrrl’s dream come true!), who participated throughout the first day.  The first order of business was a lively debate on terminology: feminist, gender, or women.

kate oggWhile I’m not sure that we reached consensus on that question, the panelists presented a feast of terrific projects, ranging from efforts to quantify women’s presence in the legal academy to examining whether fields such as global constitutionalism can be reconstituted as a feminist project.  Participants also represented a range of levels of seniority and a mix of academics and practitioners, from Kamala Chandrakirana of the UN Working Group on Discrimination Against Women in Law and in Practice, IntLawGrrl Hilary Charlesworth, and Dr. Sima Samar of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, to Siobhan Airey, currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Ottawa, writing on consent in international law; Saptarshi Mandal, an Assistant Professor at Jindal University in New Delhi, writing on global governance and local feminisms, and IntLawGrrl Gabrielle Simm, currently a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Technology in Sydney, writing on gender and disasters.  All of these projects and more will constitute the Research Handbook on Women and International Law to be published by Edward Elgar in 2017 .

This was just the first of a series of workshops that will take place around the edited volume, which aims to “define the research agenda for women’s engagement with international law over the next 50 years.”  While the participant list is largely complete, the editors are still seeking chapters that present TWAIL and/or masculinities theories, as well as those that discuss technology issues and methodologies.  If you’re interested in authoring such a chapter, please contact Prof. Sue Harris Rimmer at




ABILA Call for Proposals: International Law Weekend 2016

International Law Weekend 2016 (ILW 2016) – the premier international law event of the fall season – is scheduled for October 27-29, 2016 in New York City. The conference will be held at the New York City Bar Association (42 West 44th Street) on October 27, 2016 and at Fordham Law School (150 West 62nd Street) on October 28-29, 2016.

ILW 2016 is sponsored and organized by the  American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) – which welcomes new members from academia, the practicing bar, and the diplomatic world – and the International Law Students Association  (ILSA). This annual conference attracts an audience of more than one thousand academics, practitioners, diplomats, members of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and law students.

The unifying theme for ILW 2016 is International Law 5.0.

The world is changing at an accelerating rate. From technological advances to environmental transformations, international lawyers are forced to confront emerging forces and new scenarios. Even settled principles of law are no longer settled. These tectonic shifts have been felt throughout the geography of international law. Legal professionals at every level – local, national, regional, and international – must change their practice to meet a changing world. Innovation will become necessary for survival.

ILW 2016 will explore these issues through a diverse collection of engaging and provocative panels.

We expect the audience to include practitioners, academics, U.N. diplomats, business leaders, federal and state government officials, NGO leaders, journalists, students, and interested citizens. We plan to have a broad array of both public international law and private international law topics in each program time slot.

The ILW Organizing Committee invites proposals to be submitted online by April 9, 2016. Panels will only be accepted through the online ILW Panel Proposal Submission Form, which is located here:

Deadline: April 9, 2016

When submitting your proposal, please consider the following points.


  • Panel proposals may concern any aspect of contemporary international law and practice including, but not limited to, international arbitration, international environmental law, national security, cyber law, use of force, human rights, international humanitarian law, international organizations, international criminal law, international intellectual property, the law of the sea and outer space, and trade law. When submitting your proposal, please identify the primary area(s) of international law that your proposed panel will address.
  • Provide the names, titles, and affiliations of the chair and likely speakers. One of the objectives of ILW 2016 is to promote dialogue among scholars and practitioners. Panels should include presenters with diverse experiences and perspectives.
  • Please identify what format you are proposing for your panel. We welcome various formats, such as debates, roundtables, lectures, and break-out groups, as well as the usual practice of panel presentations.
  • Please indicate whether you are an ABILA member and whether or not your panel is sponsored by an ABILA committee.
  • We encourage you to consider taking the necessary steps to qualify your panel for CLE credit. We hope to offer several CLE panels.


For questions regarding ILW 2016, please contact


ILW 2016 Program Committee Members:


William Aceves (co-chair)

Peter Yu (co-chair)

Samuel Baumgartner

Carlos Fuentes

Rahim Moloo

Jessica Simonoff

David Stewart

Tessa Walker

Write On! PluriCourts conference ‘Adjudicating international trade and investment disputes’ (deadline March 1)

The PluriCourts Centre of Excellence at the University of Oslo is organizing a conference titled ‘Adjudicating international trade and investment disputes: between interaction and isolation.’ The conference will be hosted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Oslo 25-26 August 2016. Abstracts are due March 1, 2016.

The conference aims to focus on the relationship, interactions and comparisons between the international trade and investment regimes in the context of adjudication of disputes. The conference will welcome research across the disciplines of law, political science, and philosophy relating to three themes: the new mega-regionals, comparisons and practices, and cross-fertilization and learning. Historically, the global regulation of international trade and investment relations have been closely interrelated; but in the post-war period, international trade law and international investment law developed on largely divergent paths. While international trade regulation has culminated in a multilateral regime with a permanent dispute settlement mechanism, the international regulation of foreign direct investment is primarily governed by 3500 essentially bilateral treaty relationships calling for ad hoc investor – state arbitration potentially to be hosted by a variety of international institutions. Despite these seemingly distinct structures, there is a recent trend that some say signal a move towards regime convergence: most clearly seen in the rise of mega-regional free trade agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters.

This potential convergence may be deceiving, however. The investment chapters of FTAs remain separate from the rest of the agreements and provide for distinct rules and procedures on dispute settlement. Moreover, issues of overlap between trade chapters and investment chapters have not been resolved, which means that the same case could possibly be raised simultaneously in two separate disputes under the same FTA. Legal disputes based on investment chapters in FTAs to date (ie under the NAFTA and DR-CAFTA) appear to interpret the investment protection chapters as standalone agreements with little or no reference to other sections of the FTAs. Despite the limitations to integration that this new generation of trade and investment agreements may represent, there are other areas of interaction between the trade and investment regimes that could provide better evidence of a gradual move towards cohesion. This conference aims to look at the development of the new mega-regionals, but also the ways (or lack thereof) that the trade and investment regimes share practices and cross-fertilize.

For more information and submission procedures, see: Call for Papers – Trade Investment Conference [pdf]


Write On! Call for Papers: Colonial Law Conference, Helsinki (deadline March 1)

eci20ryhmakuva-7-349pxThe Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Helsinki has announced a call for papers for the Conference “Law Between Global and Colonial: Techniques of Empire,” to be held from 3-5 October 2016.

The conference proposes to discuss the legal languages and techniques through which colonial powers ruled non-European territories and populations throughout the modern age. The aim of the conference is to examine in detail the juridical practices and discourses of colonial powers when they exercised their supremacy over colonial subjects and disciplined them. Although the focus of the conference is historical, its theme resonates in the present. With the great numbers of people moving about in Europe, Asia and Africa as migrants, guest workers, refugees and displaced persons, territorial states have often used methods and techniques that resemble those with which colonial populations once were treated. With research showing a sharp rise in world inequality, the conference poses the question whether legislative techniques and institutions inherited from the imperial past, once again see the light of day in the present.

The conference will close the four and a half-year period of the Finnish Academy research project on “International Law, Religion and Empire” at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, University of Helsinki. Members: Martti Koskenniemi, Paolo Amorosa, Mónica García-Salmones, Manuel Jimenez and Walter Rech.

Abstracts are due by March 1. For more information, see the full Call for Papers at


Go On! iCourts/PluriCourts PhD Summer School on ‘International Law: Courts and Contexts’ (deadline 1 April)


The Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts), Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen and PluriCourts (Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order) are hosting a high-level summer school in Copenhagen June 20-24, 2016, for PhD students working on international courts in their social and political context. They particularly welcome students who are writing up a PhD thesis that involves a strong focus on methodology.

The deadline to register is 1 April, 2016. Link:

On Feminist Legal Scholarship

Let’s just assume that we all know what ‘Feminist Legal Scholarship’ is more or less about. We could simply say that a feminist legal scholar is a legal scholar that is a feminist. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? If we could just simplify everything, and accept that the easiest answer is the truer? Yet, in a Socratic paradigm, one question gives birth to many others, like: ‘What a feminist is?’ ‘What is legal scholarship?’ and so on and so forth, and “en oida oti ouden oida”.

By exercising logic, we can apparently explain what a legal scholar does, and what a feminist is supposed to be and do. It may also be easier to argue that the combination of these terms refers to a type of legal methodology that is feminist-friendly; or better put, that this “mysterious” legal trend has the scope of feminism as the telos to each legal effort – by assuming that the scope of feminism is Justice & Fairness since the essence of this idea is Equality. Well, one could also argue that by employing the terms “Feminist Jurisprudence”, we refer to legal experts engaging with critical studying the law and producing knowledge that is meant to contribute to the legal science by utilizing feminist theory’s methodological tools, as well as promote the scope of the feminist movement. While, allow me to say that ideally, feminist legal scholarship involves all the above to a certain extent, depending on the subject matter of the legal research.

However, this entire hypothesis presupposes existing epistemological knowledge, that should act as a guide in pointing out the particular scope of the specific feminist movement we aim at utilizing for the purpose of engaging with feminist legal scholarship. The emerging keyword is “methodology” again, or the lack of it. Since none of the above can satisfy the need for specific guidelines on methodology, a need is stressed by the majority of feminist legal scholars out there about filling this methodological gap by simply identifying the methodological tools that can be used when engaging with feminist legal scholarship in order to fuel the development of the field and the systematisation of the appropriate methods leading to feminist legal scholarship. It is obviously not a precondition nor its necessary for a scholar to be a feminist in order to engage with feminist legal scholarship. However, there is some positive value to be found in the conscious choice of feminist legal scholars to explicitly state in their published work whether they consider themselves feminists or not, in order to add to the utility and visibility of the field, and the epistemological reliability of the knowledge produced.

The truth of the matter is that if you ask five different feminist legal scholars what is it that this style of law is all about, you are very likely to receive five different answers. The internalized reflex of being politically correct is a syndrome well spread among legal scholars, while we may not even be conscious of that need of ours. Thankfully though, we have Philosophy to show us the way and lead us into the light once more. The moment we start to critically question norms, and dispute epistemological patterns, this is the instance that Philosophy comes into play.

So, the problem as I see it, derives principally from the fact that legal scholarship can be constructed only with respect to specific legal rules – while the term “feminist” refers to an abstract political idea that has been adopted and thus interpreted by contradictory groups to suit their needs and in this process its definition, ontological being, and scope have all been extended. Interestingly, we can observe the legal and the political, struggling to co-exist in a formation where the practical implications are deeply rooted in the contradiction of the specific subject of law and the abstract idea of the political. Therefore, we are witnessing once more the ancient clash of these fraternal twin ideas.

Through the prism of feminist jurisprudence, the law is viewed as being an essential actor in the historical subordination of women. So, in simple terms, a feminist legal scholar’s ultimate objective is to expose the ways in which law contributed to the previous subordinate status of women. Under this logic, the scope of feminist jurisprudence is devoted to shifting women’s position through a modification of the legal contact with gender.

This line of reasoning, views law in many instances, as the product of centuries of masculine legal thought. What that means is that law reflects in a variety of ways the patriarchal morals that by definition are diminishing the value of women as means for the dominant male’s ends. I am talking about sexist laws, like the rule of thumb for wife-beating, that allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick, as long as it was not thicker than his thumb. Does that sound like radical feminism to you? Wait I have better arguments to put on the table. Take for example the famous “reasonable man test”, and notice the sexist language used in law. Observe the legal literature, and realize that in every hypothetical case, the legal scholars when referring to a human being, are always using “he”, as if “he” is the only subject of law. Take for example the crime of rape, which just like heterosexuality, centers its definition on penetration. Critically look at how law is used to regulate the female body through abortion bans around the globe, part of a net of series of unreasonable legal rules that aim to diminish the value of the woman to a vessel without autonomy or freedom of choice over their bodies, and in consequence we can see how law provides a net of support adding to the objectification of women, while perpetuating rape culture.

As philosophy teaches, Truth is often hidden in language, (See: Heidegger, 1962, p. 261) and the language we use today, is indicative of the criterion used for determining the status of women. I am referring to the simple exercise of comparing it with the status of men. What I mean to argue, is that feminists constantly use the term equality, but what do they mean can only be known by comparing the status of women with the status of men. It is unfortunately impossible to escape from this binary when dealing with the feminist idea. It makes sense to add to this train of thought the words of Derrida, who famously argued that all we are able to understand is differences.

The need to engage with ‘feminist legal scholarship’ is today more evident and justifiable than ever. As I came to understand it, ultimately refers to: Consciousness-raising; Asking the “woman question”; Challenging patriarchy and the legal norms deriving from it; Deconstructing the subject of the legal claim and the traditional binaries, as well as hierarchies in law; Addressing gender-based violence; Restoring history through the collection of facts that uncover the cases of female victims; and last but not least addressing that traditionally law has been a male construct and that the subject of law is male. “For women to be included as subjects of law, their voices have to be listened to and, more importantly, to be heard and acted upon. For too long the law, legal theory, and jurisprudence has presented itself as a rational objective ordering of gender-neutral persons, while at the same time subconsciously addressing only the essential male.” (See: H. Barnett, 2013, p. 4).

It is lady-justice-statueinteresting to observe that Lady Justice holds a weighing scale in struggling to bring harmonious fairness into this world. Justice, as well as equality (both depicted as females), is portrayed as the balance between different claims. Although traditionally the value of women was weighed against that of men, since equality can be understood in comparison to the other gender in a narrow-minded binary conception of the legal reach, continuing using this logic is a recipe for disaster and one of the reasons that justice has yet to be achieved. Feminist equality is also about exposing the male privilege, the systemic binary inequalities between the two dominant genders of the society, parallel to comparing the value of humans in a discriminatory exercise with only criterion the gender of the subject of the law. It seems impossible to escape this comparison, however, it seems to me that this way of evaluating and assessing the value of human beings creates more problems than it actually solves. Comparing human beings is by definition contrary to the synonymous ideas of Justice, Fairness, and Human Rights. Nonetheless, we cannot stay in denial and refuse to acknowledge the persistent inequalities imposed on women simply because of their gender, even today. Because if we take a good look around us, from the place we work and micro-narratives to overall society and macro-narratives, we do not need to be statisticians to realize that women do not enjoy real equality with men, neither are free from gender-based discrimination.

There is still work to be done!

The UN creates a new rapporteur on the right to privacy in the digital age

In a highly anticipated resolution passed on March 26, 2015, the UN Human Rights Council decided to appoint a special rapporteur on the right to privacy, with a particular focus on issues arising in the digital age. The resolution was welcomed by international civil society organizations, which have been advocating for the creation of a special mandate from the months following the revelations of Edward Snowden. Spearheaded by Germany and Brazil and passed by consensus, the resolution is an affirmation that government communications surveillance continues to concern the international community nearly two years after the first disclosure.

Despite the validation from the United Nations that this issue merits continued focus, the flurry of recent international reports, resolutions, and legal challenges involving the right to privacy in digital communications may lead observers to question what new contributions a rapporteur can add to the international debate. This post contains an overview of the international legal developments around this issue to date, and a second post will offer some thoughts as to where the new rapporteur might direct her or his focus.

The right to privacy is established in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as in the regional human rights treaties. Since the Klass and others v. Germany case of 1978, the European Court of Human Rights has issued the greatest number of relevant precedents on privacy and communications surveillance. The UN Human Rights Committee’s brief General Comment 16 of 1988 on the right to privacy predates most of the technologies that occupy current headlines, and it is not consistent with the standards being applied at the time by the European Court. The comment maintains that “[s]urveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, interceptions of telephonic, telegraphic and other forms of communication, wire‑tapping and recording of conversations should be prohibited.”

In 2009, the report of special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights Martin Scheinin dealt with communications surveillance and marked an increasing interest in issues arising in the digital age on the part of the UN human rights system. Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8 of July 5, 2012, while not specifically mentioning the right to privacy, affirmed that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. The 2013 report of UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression Frank La Rue, released publicly days before the first Snowden revelation, explored the key issues and standards related to the right to privacy and communications surveillance. Continue reading

An Argument for Construction of Common TWAIL-Based Identity in East and Southeast Asia

The Unequal Treaties weave the narrative of state transformation and the deconstruction of the Sino-centric regional order in the Southeast Asia. A chain of empires and kingdoms—extending from the Korean plateau in the northeast, Japan, the Qing Empire, and the Kingdom of Siam in the southeast, were faced with relentless diplomatic pressure under the shadow of gunboats, and coerced into entering into biased and one-sided treaties. Across the region, these treaties set out a pattern of relations, which formed the infrastructure of a semi-colonial political system. Not only the unequal treaties forced the semi-colonial states to reform and restructure themselves to suit the needs of the Western powers, they also provided a new institutional framework for international politics in the region. The post-Westphalia concepts of sovereignty and equality displaced the traditional hierarchy-based system of inter-state relations in the region. As the nineteenth century turned over, the Western powers systematically fractured the former Sino-centric regional structure by carving out spheres of influence, and left it littered with bitter political disputes and legal anomalies that continue to this day.

However, a lesson in history is not where this discourse on Unequal Treaties ought to stop. This is so particularly because the current international legal regime is still frequently used to legitimize and sustain the unequal structures and processes that have manifested themselves in the growing North-South divide. The relationship between ‘state’ and ‘international law’ is being reconstituted to the distinct disadvantage of the Third World and its people. As in the past two centuries, the policies and laws of the Third World states are still being dictated by the international institutions that are conspicuously controlled by the ‘First World’. It is not in vacuum that the terms like ‘neo-colonialism’ or ‘neo-imperialism’ have been coined. Many of the Southeast Asian States forming a part of the Third World, have witnessed debilitating economic meltdowns and severe political interferences because of such a structure of the international order that infiltrates and superimposes the interests of a transnational ruling elite on the developing states.

It is at this juncture that the ‘Third World Approach to International Law’ (TWAIL) be taken into serious consideration. TWAIL – a critical school of international legal scholarship — is an intellectual and political movement formed by a group of states, which are, although geographically, culturally, politically, and economically diverse, bound by a shared colonial past. It is a coming together of such States to build a common platform to consolidate the sources of international law in order to articulate and address the material and ethical concerns of the region and its people. TWAIL seeks to pierce the partial blindness induced by the structural determinism of the omnipresent and penetrative international legal regime, which has in turn prevented a holistic critique of the regressive international practices, or mapping out alternative futures. This approach has come a long way from its first generation foundational phase to inter-state forums being set up on the basis of their common history and shared goals. TWAIL may not be dismissed as a mere theoretical proposition or a wishful radical transformation, as it proves its practical and real-life functionality. A most recent and a gem of an example is the setting up of the New Development Bank by the BRICS States. By establishing this new multilateral bank, the BRICS States have decentralized the power previously held by IMF, and the World Bank, which were always complained to be too American or Eurocentric. The success of the BRICS Bank is yet to be assessed in coming years, but the establishment of such an institution, which may mark the emergence of a new financial order, by a handful of developing states, is a laudatory act in itself. 

Witnessing the continuing imposition of structural inequality in Southeast Asia, affected through partisan application of International Law, the central proposition calls for construction a common TWAIL-based identity for the region. Drawing largely from the Constructivist theories in international relations, it can be plausibly argued that construction of an identity based on doctrinal epochs of TWAIL will create an intersubjective system based upon shared history, mutual understanding and social knowledge, and common understanding. This will be instrumental in helping the Southeast Asian states to positively identify their interests with regard to each other in larger international forums. Once this shared identity is settled into the consciousness of the States in the region, it can be evolved into  a political platform to gain leverage in international negotiations on the issues of common regional concern, and for establishment of new institutions and regional orders, howsoever the need be.

Hopefully, by reclaiming the narrative and turning over the rhetoric through TWAIL, this long continuing discourse of the unequal treaties will come to an end in this era.

11th Annaual Conference of the European Society of International Law “The Judicialization of International Law- A Mixed Blessing?” Call for Proposals

Call for ProposalsThe 11th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law will take place in Oslo, Norway. It is hosted by the PluriCourts Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order, University of Oslo.

The Organising Committee of the conference invites all scholars (including PhD students) to submit proposals for papers to be presented at the conference, as well as proposals for a full panel of speakers for a single agora.
General guidelines

The purpose of the agorae is to share cutting-edge research in specific areas of international law, to stimulate debate, and to foster discussion between participants. ESIL Interest Groups are particularly welcome to propose agorae. Innovative ideas for conducting a panel (e.g. round table) are also encouraged.

Proposals for papers or agorae can be submitted either in English or French.

Proposal should correspond to the overall conference theme and can relate to (but need not be limited to) the following, partly overlapping, topics:
Problems and perspectives of special regional courts, or problems affecting the development of the international judicial function (e.g. access to international justice, judicial review of political acts, revision of an international judgments by a court of appeal, etc.)

How do courts matter for the substance of the law in particular subject-areas?
The place of international judgments in the doctrine of sources
Do international courts and tribunals have a function in relation to economic, social and cultural rights?
An ‘International Tort Court’ for multinational corporations?
A World Court of Human Rights?
A World Court of International Humanitarian Law?
The future of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
Professional ethics for judges
International courts and tribunals in new areas, such as international security; a more fair global resource allocation; protecting social rights; improving global health; more responsible multinational corporations; dealing with transnational internet problems?
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
The future of the International Criminal Court
Reform of regional human rights courts and global human rights treaty bodies
The future of investment tribunals
The WTO and regional trade tribunals
The role of the ICJ
Arbitration vs courts
Sovereign debt default and international dispute settlement mechanisms
Hybrid courts and their possible use as a form of international justice (piracy, environmental damages, compensations, etc.)
Courts and third world/postcolonial approaches and feminist theory
Historical, economic, sociological, etc. approaches to international courts
Implementation of international judgments in national legal orders

TimelineThe deadline for the submission of abstracts is 31 January 2015
Successful applicants will be informed by 31 March 2015
The deadline for the submission of the full papers is 1 July 2015
The conference begins on Thursday 10 September 2015 in the morning and ends on Saturday 12 September 2014 in the early afternoon
The deadline for the submission of final papers, to be included in a future conference publication or in the ESIL SSRN series, is 1 October 2015

All selected agora speakers will have to register for the conference. They will receive free registration, provided they are ESIL members. The organisation does not cover expenses for travelling and accommodation.

After the conference, ESIL provides the opportunity to publish papers in the ESIL SSRN Series and also plans to publish selected high-quality papers in a book series

ESIL Young Scholar Prize
From 2015 onwards, ESIL will award the ESIL Young Scholar Prize at each Annual Conference; this is a prize for the best paper submitted to the conference by scholars at an early stage in their academic career. Early-career scholars are either PhD candidates or those who have had their oral defense no longer than 2 years prior to the submission of the abstract. Candidates for the prize have to be current ESIL members.

The Prize is sponsored by the law firm WilmerHale. Please indicate, when submitting an abstract, if you wish the submission to be considered for the ESIL Young Scholar Prize.

For further information regarding the Submission of Agora or Paper Proposals see here

Papers presented in agorae should present innovative ideas, be unpublished at the moment of presentation, and be in an advanced stage of completion.

Abstracts will be reviewed by a selection committee. Joint submissions are possible, but, if selected, only one person may receive free registration to the conference.

Selection criteria are:
Originality and innovativeness of the work
Links to the conference theme
Geographical and gender balance
Only one abstract per author will be considered

Abstracts must not exceed 800 words.

Write On! 2015 ASIL Annual Meeting Call for Papers – New Voices Sessions (deadline 30 Oct.)

From April 8-11, 2015, the American Society of International Law will convene its 109th Annual Meeting. The aim of the 2015 Annual Meeting is to promote a rigorous discussion on the question of how international law is “adapting to a rapidly changing world.”

Next year, as in the past, the Planning Committee for the Annual Meeting would like to include at least one “New Voices” session that will provide a platform for junior scholars and practitioners to present their works-in-progress.

ASIL invites submissions from non-tenured scholars and junior practitioners on any topic of international law.  Any authors who submitted a paper abstract in the first call for papers and session proposals do not need to submit again; those abstracts remain under consideration.

Abstracts should be well developed and reflect advanced progress on a paper that will be presented at the Meeting. Final papers will be due by March 30, 2015.

Send your abstract to by no later than Thursday, October 30, 2014, with the subject line “New Voices Proposal.”  Please send the abstract as a Microsoft Word attachment, including your name and contact information (email address & affiliation).  Abstracts should be no longer than 1000 words.  Selected authors will be notified by the end of November.

Please direct any questions to the co-chairs of the ASIL New Professionals Interest Group at