This book explores the extent to which contemporary international law expects states to take into account the interests of others – namely third states or their citizens – when they form and implement their policies, negotiate agreements, and generally conduct their relations with other states.
It systematically considers the various manifestations of what has been described as ‘community interests’ in many areas regulated by international law and observes how the law has evolved from a legal system based on more or less specific consent and aimed at promoting particular interests of states, to one that is more generally oriented towards collectively protecting common interests and values. Through essays by experts in the field, this book explores topics such as the sources of international law and the institutional aspects of developing the law and covers a range of areas within the law.
Community Interests Across International Law in OUP website
Volume 18(2) of Theoretical Inquiries in Law (2017) carries the papers presented at the September 2015 conference
Myriam Feinberg’s new book analyzes the role of international organizations in adopting counterterrorism measures after 9/11 and the impact of these measures on the sovereignty of their Member States.
Olga Frishman and Eyal Benvenisti
Published in: The Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts (Helmut Philipp Aust & Georg Nolte eds., Oxford University Press 2016)
Eliav Lieblich and Eyal Benvenisti
Forthcoming in TAU Law Review – Iyuney Mishpat (2016), posted on ssrn
Here is the abstract:
Under the laws of armed conflict, targeting decisions are subject to the requirement to exercise constant discretion. This requirement is all the more stronger in the context of asymmetric warfare, when the use of force constitutes the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis individuals subjected to state power. Autonomous weapons systems (AWS) are based on pre-programmed algorithms. The pre-programmed algorithm binds the discretion of the human operators of the AWS. Hence the deployment of AWS, without constant human involvement in targeting decisions, is per se arbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of international humanitarian law and human rights law. We submit that our analysis provides a more satisfying explanation for the intuitive resentment toward AWS that is addressed in the otherwise rather circular debate about the morality and lawfulness of AWS.