What Would Zero Look Like? A Treaty for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear disarmament-the comprehensive, universal, and permanent abolition of all nuclear weapons, pursuant to a verifiable, legally binding international agreement-has long been one of the most ambitious, controversial, and urgent items on the agenda for arms control. To date, however, most of the discussion of getting to zero has highlighted the political, military, technical and diplomatic dimensions of this complex problem, and there has been relatively little attention to the legal requirements for drafting such a novel treaty. This Article fills that gap by offering two proposed agreements. The first, a non-legally-bindingfr amework accord, would be designedf or signature relatively soon (e.g., in 2015) to re-commit states to the goal of nuclear elimination and to energize their concerted individual and collective action on a set of prescribed steps in pursuit of it. The second, a legally-binding document, would be concluded at some point in the more distant future, when states had accomplished great reductions in their current nuclear arsenals and were ready, at last, to plunge forward to true abolition. The Article describes the conditions necessary for the further articulation of these two novel agreements, and the text of each instrument carries numerous annotations that identify competing options, describe the negotiating range, and illuminate the drafter\u27s choices. The hope is that something novel can be gained-fresh insights can be suggested, and new questions can be raised (even if answering them remains elusive)-by advancing the dialogue about nuclear disarmament to the concrete stage of treaty drafting

Prospects for the 2011 BTWC Review Conference

No description supplie

Shared Responsibilities for Nuclear Disarmament: A Global Debate

Presents Sagan's 2009 paper calling for rethinking the balance of responsibilities and the relationship between articles in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with seven response papers by international scholars about how to pursue nuclear disarmament

Return to Geneva: Uncertainties and Options

Ye

The Permit Power Revisited: The Theory and Practice of Regulatory Permits in the Administrative State

Two decades ago, Professor Richard Epstein fired a shot at the administrative state that has gone largely unanswered in legal scholarship. His target was the permit power, under which legislatures prohibit a specified activity by statute and delegate to administrative agencies the discretionary power to authorize the activity under terms the agency mandates in a regulatory permit. Accurately describing the permit power as an enormous power in the state, Epstein bemoaned that it had received scant attention in the academic literature. He sought to fill that gap. Centered on the premise that the permit power represents a complete inversion of the proper distribution of power within a legal system, Epstein launched a scathing critique of regulatory permitting in operation, condemning it as a racket for administrative abuses and excesses. Epstein\u27s assessment of the permit power was and remains accurate in three respects: it is vast in scope, it is ripe for administrative abuse, and it has been largely ignored in legal scholarship. The problem is that, beyond what he got right about the permit power, most of Epstein\u27s critique was based on an incomplete caricature of permitting in theory and practice. This Article is the first to return comprehensively to the permit power since Epstein\u27s critique, offering a deep account of the theory and practice of regulatory permits in the administrative state. This Article opens by defining the various types of regulatory permits and describing the scope of permitting in the regulatory state. From there it compares different permit design approaches and explores the advantages of general permits, including their ability to mitigate many of the concerns Epstein advanced. This Article then applies a theoretical model to environmental degradation problems and concludes that if certain conditions are met, general permits can effectively respond to many of the complex policy problems of the future. Finally, this Article adds to the scholarship initiated by Epstein by proposing a set of default rules and exceptions for permit design and suggesting how they apply to complex policy problems

Setting the NAFTA Agenda on Climate Change

After years of inaction, the three partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)--Canada, Mexico, and the United States--now recognize the imperative to start the long-term process of substantially reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACESA) passed by the US House of Representatives in June 2009 cuts emissions, sets new standards for the use of renewable energy sources, and provides support to ease the transition to a low-carbon economy and to mitigate concerns about trade competitiveness of carbon-intensive industries and increased energy costs to consumers. The policy brief assesses the implications of the ACESA for North American trade and investment, particularly the free distribution of emissions permits, the allocation of revenues generated by the limited auctioning of emissions permits, the impact of renewable portfolio standards on US-Canada electricity trade, and the international offset provisions (that could be available to support Mexican policies seeking to cut GHG emissions in half by 2050). In light of ACESA's trade implications, the authors offer a pragmatic NAFTA agenda for near-term action on climate change issues. First, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation should be used as a clearinghouse for climate change-related data. Second, Canada and the United States should standardize definitions of renewable energy and coordinate their policies. Third, NAFTA members should commit not to impose border measures to address competitiveness concerns arising from new climate change policies (i.e., a temporary "peace clause") until a framework for such measures is developed under the WTO. Fourth, NAFTA members should study options for coordinating or integrating the evolving carbon regimes in each country. Fifth, NAFTA partners should establish a "safe harbor" to shield climate change taxes and regulations from claims under the indirect takings provisions of NAFTA Chapter 11. Finally, capacity building in Mexico will be essential to North American coordination on climate change. The North American Development Bank should be used to provide finance and technical assistance for energy-saving and pollution control projects in Mexico in support of its ambitious climate change policies. North American cooperation could serve as a model for how developed and developing countries can mutually benefit from an international climate change agreement.

Challenges and Prospects for the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Recommendations to the European Commission for the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Working Document No. 313, 16 April 2009

The upcoming Swedish presidency of the EU will be in charge of adopting the next multi-annual programme on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), during its tenure in the second half of 2009. As the successor of the 2004 Hague Programme, it has already been informally baptised as the Stockholm Programme and will present the EU’s policy roadmap and legislative timetable over these policies for the next five years. It is therefore a critical time to reflect on the achievements and shortcomings affecting the role that the European Commission’s Directorate-General of Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JFS) has played during the last five years in light of the degree of policy convergence achieved so far. This Working Document aims at putting forward a set of policy recommendations for the DG JFS to take into consideration as it develops and consolidates its future policy strategies, while duly ensuring the legitimacy and credibility of the EU’s AFSJ within and outside Europe

The Court of Justice of the European Union in the Twenty-First Century

LiU har en tradition av att lärare framgångsrikt har sökt och även erhållit, resurser för pedagogiska utvecklingsprojekt på den tiden när sådana medel fördelades i konkurrens på nationell nivå av t.ex. Rådet för grundutbildning, NSHU etc. Sedan 2008, när NSHU lades ner, finns inget sådan nationellt organ utan varje lärosäte har i uppdrag att själva arbeta med sitt interna kvalitetsarbete när det gäller utbildning. Under 2010 utlyste CUL medel för att stimulera sådana utvecklingsprojekt vid LiU, och tio projekt beviljades medel. I denna rapport finns bidrag från Laura Alvarez et.al; Madelaine Johansson et.al och Gunnel Östlund som är resultat av denna satsning. Under samma tid utlystes pedagogiska utvecklingsmedel inom LiTH, och bidragen från Ingrid Andersson och Johan Hedbrant, Henrik Brandén, Johan Renner och Björn Oskarsson är resultat av denna satsning. Utöver dessa personer bidrar också ett antal lärare med arbeten som grundar sig på deras kunskaper och insikter från deltagande i högskolepedagogiska kurser, undervisning och arbete med studenter, t.ex. på biblioteket. Bidrag från Chun-Xia Du, Ann-Sofie Bergeling, Christina Brage et.al och Magnus Dahlstedt är exempel på detta. Bidragen är skrivna på både svenska och engelska och varje författare är ensam ansvarig för innehållet. Vid redigeringen av bidragen har en ambition varit att de skall kunna läsas av icke ämneskunniga personer, men ibland är det svårt att förklara det konkreta genomförandet av kurser utan att använda fackuttryck. Vad gäller sättet att skriva referenser så har riktlinjerna varit att detta skall göras konsekvent, utifrån ett givet system, inom respektive bidrag. Bidragen är organiserade i tre delar: Lärandeideal och utformning av lärmiljöer Betydelsen av hur utbildning och kurser designas – för lärande och undervisning Utveckling och förändring av läraktiviteter och lärares förhållningssät