South and East Asian Perspectives on International LawSymposium

Are We Living in the “Eastphalian” Moment?

South and East Asian Perspectives on International Law

Diverging views and perspectives on international law are unavoidable. The global span of this body of law and the different geographical, cultural, religious and educational backgrounds of those who work with it contribute importantly to the understanding of its normative frameworks. Multiperspectivism and situatedness thus somewhat seem to be inherent to the DNA of international law (see e.g. here; see also this recent book). The fact that scholars from different countries and continents …

READ MORE →

Cultural Heritage in a Post-Colonial WorldSymposium

The politics of cultural heritage protection in international law

A new history crushing the narrative of a success story

Every legal field has its own history and every history has its own master narrative, in the case of international law protecting cultural heritage it is a plain success story. International legal efforts to safeguard cultural goods and sites started in the interwar period. It was after the horrifying destructions of the First World War that internationalists and lawyers discussed how to efficiently protect artefacts of artistic and historical value. …

READ MORE →

Current DevelopmentsForum

Kulturgüter – Neue Narrative für den Umgang mit dem postkolonialen Erbe

Der Kulturgüterschutz ist wie kaum ein anderes Feld mit Fragen der Identität sowie Emotionen verknüpft. In ihrem konzisen Überblick zu den Herausforderungen des völkerrechtlichen Kulturgüterschutzes hat Adrianna A. Michel diesen Punkt subkutan, aber auch explizit, thematisiert. „Restitution“ ist in aller Munde, wenn historische Gerechtigkeit beschworen wird, die gegenüber den ehemaligen Kolonialterritorien und quasi-kolonialisierten Gebieten zu üben ist. Mit der Argumentationsfigur vom gemeinsamen kulturellen Erbe der Menschheit werden solche Forderungen oftmals …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

“P” for Partnership or “R” for Regime?

A Pamphlet on TTIP and the Fragmentation of International Law

A response to Maximilian Oehl and Jelena Bäumler In their attentive and stimulating posts, Maximilian Oehl and Jelena Bäumler considered the condition of the WTO and the role of public debate for TTIP differently. My intention is to take a step back and to reflect on the “important questions relating to the framing of the debate” as Maximilian Oehl put it. Maximilian Oehl started his text spelling out the abbreviation …

READ MORE →