Feminist international legal scholarship has been attentive to the gendered framing of the ‘war on terror’, specifically, in relation to proliferating practices of democratisation in third world societies. I suggest that Afghan women’s experiences are integral to challenge the function of human rights in reproducing gender norms.
We are still in the process of assessing the outcomes of 20 years of Western military and humanitarian presence in Afghanistan, and of a heartless and chaotic withdrawal. The current and somewhat self-centred debates may obscure considerable collateral legal nihilism. My main argument is that the re-interpretation of Art. 51 UN Charter by the US in the context of the so called “war on terror” was (and still is) an attempt to re-introduce new legal justifications for old forms of great power interventionism.
In this brief essay, we wish to highlight some insights from behavioural economics that can contribute to a successful process of international pandemic lawmaking. Our interest here is not to engage with individual or collective psychological reactions to pandemics or other large-scale risks, or with substantive policy made in their wake. Several such behavioural issues and dimensions have been dealt with elsewhere, not without (ongoing) spirited debate. Here, however, while building on related frameworks of analysis from the field of behavioral economics, as applied to international law (including nudge theory), our focus is on the process and design of pandemic international law-making.
Alongside the political question of the consequences of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, there is also the pressing question of the legal responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany. We come to the interim conclusion that the Federal Republic of Germany has not fully complied with its obligations to protect fundamental rights - above all the protection of life under Article 2 of the Basic Law - and its obligations under international law.
From the perspective of an international lawyer, the urban dimension of the attacks of 9/11 is conspicuously absent from most of the debates. Yet, there is a hidden story underneath the bigger geopolitical picture and its international legal implications that most of the contributions to this symposium discuss. The 9/11 attacks went for urban symbols that were at the same time global symbols; in the wave of terrorism that followed cities both in the Global North and Global South were the target – physically, politically and culturally. Security is increasingly understood as an urban issue.
Diese urbane Dimension der Anschläge vom 11. September wird in den meisten völkerrechtlichen Debatten auffällig wenig berücksichtigt. Jedoch verbirgt sich hinter den größeren geopolitischen Entwicklungen und den damit verbunden völkerrechtlichen Auswirkungen, eine weitere Geschichte. Die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 zielten auf urbane Symbole ab, die gleichzeitig globale Symbole waren; in der darauffolgenden Terrorismuswelle waren Städte sowohl im globalen Norden als auch im globalen Süden das Ziel - physisch, politisch und kulturell. Sicherheit wird zunehmend als ein urbanes Thema verstanden.
Our international norms are arguably ill adapted to emergencies such as pandemics. In this contribution I discuss a potential remedy for one related challenge, namely a cooperation amongst competitors for the accelerated development of vaccines. A way to foster cooperation could be the use of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms to the licensing of pandemic-essential intellectual property rights (IPR).
Examining how Western states - primarily the US, UK and Canada - approach and develop their exceptional status with respect to allegations of international crimes shows that they pursue ‘exceptionalism’ and its benefits through a variety of strategies. Given the relative standing and power of these states internationally, the risks posed by their tactics may disproportionately burden international institutions and norms rather than the states themselves.
The Western imaginary of solidarity to distant others has long dominated discussions of Afghanistan. This commentary looks at what might be described as intermediary solidarities - towards local suppletives who have put themselves in harm’s way to aid foreign interventions, primarily Afghan interpreters, employed by Western armies. I contrast a sense of patriotic noblesse oblige to former allies with a more critical international evaluation of the status of these interpreters.
A pandemic instrument should recognize the changed landscape of the international community and enhance roles for and communication between regional and global governmental bodies and especially non-governmental actors. I recommend a new international instrument on pandemic response be explicit about reporting requirements when governments suspend rights during such emergencies.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters