tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post111836062989731983..comments2024-01-16T22:44:45.454-05:00Comments on The TransAtlantic Assembly: Some brief reflections on the ESIL Research Forum 2005Scott M. Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02806282026211879465noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1118687934223297862005-06-13T14:38:00.000-04:002005-06-13T14:38:00.000-04:00Good points. In terms of the Society's language p...Good points. <BR/><BR/>In terms of the Society's language policy, I suppose I had just had very low expectations, and was thus presently surprised to see that English didn't dominate entirely. You're undoubtedly correct that this is setting my sights altogether to low.<BR/><BR/>Didn't know that about Brownlie, either; it does change things, although less than clear as to whether the facts of the situation on the ground in Kosovo would have justified the invocation of a right to humanitarian intervention should one be held to exist.Euan MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06191651493895392340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1118412409949064312005-06-10T10:06:00.000-04:002005-06-10T10:06:00.000-04:00(1) Absolutely agree. Had the same problem. The "t...(1) Absolutely agree. Had the same problem. The "theory" may have been right, but the "practical" side did not work. <BR/><BR/>(2) and (3) - true. <BR/><BR/>(4) In an ideal world, the members of the society would have been given the chance to choose among SEVERAL options, e.g.: (i) five or six "equally official" languages [why only English and French? why not also German (Triepel, Kelsen), Italian (Anzilotti), Russian [Tunkin, Pashukanis), etc.?]; (ii) several "official" languages alongside two or three working languages; (iii) two or three working languages only; and, say,(iv) one language only (to minimise the transaction costs). <BR/><BR/>Obviously, given the delicate nature of Europe's linguistic identity, no one in their sane mind would probably campaign for the last option (at least not if they hope to get invited the following year). Still, it'd be kinda nice to have been given some room for reflection. <BR/><BR/>Otherwise, the E of the "ESIL" doesn't really look that inclusive at all [is French supposed to be the stand-in for everything to the east of Dover?] and its IL bit doesn't really look that new in its conceptualisation [seems like they just copied what the Hague Academy and the World Court's founding grandfathers did; and I thought we were talking about a twenty-first century, forward-looking "new Europe" thing]. <BR/><BR/>Finally, everything else aside, what's the real story with bilinguality here? Does ESIL want to come across as an institution motivated by considerations of linguo-diversity (along the lines of biodiversity) or mere efficiency? In other words, does it want to look like it's propagating bilinguality because it thinks this is the best way to fight Anglo-hegemony or because it thinks French is really as much a lingua franca of international law today as English? However you look at it, neither of these options admits of a straightforward endorsement. And yet all the maitres act as if this were not the case. Don't know about you, but I'm feeling kinda ambivalent about such kind of postures.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I'd personally vote for multilinguality with both hands: few things could be more disastrous for the international legal project in the long run than having a monodimensional linguistic identity. Still, this does not mean, I should like to think, that one must necessarily feel content the moment the Anglophones carve out some affirmative-action space for French (or for that matter any other language). [Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, anyone?] <BR/><BR/>To conclude, framing the matter in terms of "either Anglophonie or bilingualism," I'd say, obfuscates more about the ESIL's processes of self-constitution than it could possibly elucidate. Which raises the perennial question: cui bono?<BR/><BR/>(5) Except that Brownlie was actually hired by Serbia and Montenegro to argue their side in the Nato-Kosovo cases before the ICJ (which his clients, incidentally, lost). See, e.g., http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iyfr/iyfrjudgment/iyfr_judgment_20041215.htm.<BR/><BR/>PS - definitely, but need to do some revising first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1118404533193705242005-06-10T07:55:00.000-04:002005-06-10T07:55:00.000-04:00p.s. Any chance you could send me your paper?p.s. Any chance you could send me your paper?Euan MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06191651493895392340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1118394286012756292005-06-10T05:04:00.000-04:002005-06-10T05:04:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comment, Akbar.1) I see the point, ...Thanks for the comment, Akbar.<BR/><BR/>1) I see the point, but the absence of papers beforehand coupled with the short presentations meant that the discussion was not as in-depth as might otherwise have been.<BR/><BR/>2) and 3) Even making the papers available online a few days before the forum would have allowed those interested to get a better grasp of what was being argued.<BR/><BR/>4) You think that the Society should be monolingual? Or more multilingual than just English and French? One of the defining charateristics of Europe is its attempt to organise in more than one language - I'm pleased to see this carried through to the society. And I don't think that having a strong French langauge component was detrimental to the quality of the event. Had it been any other language, however, I wouldn't have been able to understand enough to make that judgement... As for ASIL, I'm not really sure; only that there wasn't such an overtly self-conscious attempt to define ESIL in opposition to it that there seems to have been last year.<BR/><BR/>5) You're right, Brownlie didn't say that much (no-one really did in that panel), but I still enjoyed his contribution. The part that stuck in my mind was the call for international lawyers to spend at least some time querying whether the facts of a situation warrant the application of a legal category, and not merely over the "existence" or otherwise of that category. To hear that as a critique of the Kosovo affair from such a dominant, old-school, mainstream voice was refreshing.Euan MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06191651493895392340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9432583.post-1118368561756931242005-06-09T21:56:00.000-04:002005-06-09T21:56:00.000-04:00This was interesting. Thanks, Euan. Several points...This was interesting. Thanks, Euan. <BR/><BR/>Several points:<BR/><BR/>(1) Ten minutes was REALLY not enough, but you could see the point the organisers tried to make. Discussion over monologues.<BR/><BR/>(2) At least for some panels, there was no chance to circulate the papers beforehand among all the attendees. The presenters themselves got each other's drafts only a week or so before the actual event. <BR/><BR/>(3) Some papers were very long. No conference host would be able to afford to do THAT much photocopying. Abstracts were made available to every registered attendee though. (Admittedly, not all were sufficiently informative.) <BR/><BR/>(4) I think you've been too - for lack of a better word - positive about the society's stance on multilingualism. Also, the ESIL's relationship to ASIL, I'd say, is far more ambivalent than its projected image of it. <BR/><BR/>(5) Now, really, Brownlie didn't say much, did he? [Other than that international law is actually really international and he doesn't like the way everyone thinks about Kosovo-99 but prefers rather to call it a "flaw in the existing international legal system".] Or would you disagree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com