Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2020$

Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo

Print publication date: 2021

Print ISBN-13: 9780197618721

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: February 2022

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197618721.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.date: 16 May 2022

Facing the Crisis of Global Governance—GCYILJ’s Twentieth Anniversary at the Intersection of Continuity and Dynamic Progress

Facing the Crisis of Global Governance—GCYILJ’s Twentieth Anniversary at the Intersection of Continuity and Dynamic Progress

Chapter:
(p.5) Facing the Crisis of Global Governance—GCYILJ’s Twentieth Anniversary at the Intersection of Continuity and Dynamic Progress
Source:
The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2020
Author(s):

Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780197618721.003.0001

Abstract and Keywords

The twentieth anniversary of the Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence is a cause for celebration. This editorial introduction traces the history of the Yearbook from its debut in 2001 and its subsequent evolution to the present day. A presentation of the Yearbook’s intellectual trajectory, as developed from its original roots, shows important differences across time but also intriguing prospects for an annual publication that aims for relevancy and impact at the very forefront of events in law, politics, ethics, and jurisprudence in a global society. Our anniversary is a time to reflect on how the Yearbook and its interdisciplinary context have developed in synergy by looking back at some of the changes we made and, at the same time, to strategize for the future. In particular, we plan to shift the focus in response to the unfortunate conjuncture of the current crisis in global governance, the decline of global organizations, and the revival of nationalism.

Keywords:   globalization, global justice, global community, global constitutional principles, global constitution, global law, global governance, jurisprudential cross fertilization, co-management of global issues, twentieth anniversary of GCYILJ

I. A Short History of the Journal

At its twentieth anniversary in 2020, in-house stakeholders like the undersigned (general editor) at the Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence (GCYILJ or (p.6) Yearbook) reflect upon its successes and achievements. Our anniversary is a time to look both back and forward. Looking in the rearview mirror, the changes we have made to meet the challenges we faced in the past twenty years deserve mentioning, if perhaps selectively—for the challenges were not all equal. Looking forward, the future beckons us to rethink ideas as well as approaches, with a view to refocusing the optic, perhaps even inserting a different lens.

Toward the end of the last century, I felt that things were changing fast in the world. As a result of the impact of globalization, changes in the structure and rules of the international community and its law were becoming more and more pronounced. The work of the global international institutions and the activity of the international judicial bodies for the protection of individuals’ and peoples’ rights, as guaranteed by general rules and constitutional principles, initiated the process of institutionalization of the international community and the construction of a global constitution.

I was particularly concerned with the rise of global principles, “rules increasingly oriented towards the individuals, the ethnic groups, man in a global sense, humankind and future generations in general” (G. Ziccardi Capaldo, Editorial, GCYILJ 2001 (2001), at xix (hereinafter Editorial 2001)), and the environment was an integral part of the set of public interests I addressed. One endeavor that characterized my response and engagement was the need to explain the origins and processes of institutional change of the international society and the corresponding erosion of state sovereignty; and I was primarily contributing to approaches concerning the “normative role” of the courts (studies related to concepts and ideas were proposed and developed in a book entitled The Pillars of Global Law (2008)).1 I had already ventured into studies related to changes in the rules on the repression of international terrorism and the establishment of a system of collective guarantees (1990).2 I had also provided insights into new approaches to territorial sovereignty, largely limited by the emergence of principles of legality prohibiting “unlawful territorial situations” (i.e. illegal regimes established and maintained in breach of international law, such as regimes that violated international human rights law and the self-determination of peoples, occupying regimes, racist regimes, etc.), in 1977.3 Furthermore, I had launched ideas about the ongoing process of regulatory and structural “verticalization” of the international community and the reallocation of international power, just as I pioneered research to systematize and to disseminate knowledge of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) jurisprudence in a Repertory, in 1995.4

In summary, I responded to “a new reality” because well aware that with the phasing out of the Westphalian system “[ … ] we [were] witnessing great changes in the structure and rules of the world community, as it moved away from the classical model based on mere inter-state society” (Editorial 2001, at xix). The implied necessity signal for broad as opposed to narrow value premises was one I saw as a platform for cutting-edge research—and the challenge and indeed opportunity to move forward with fresh ideas on how to respond to the fundamental changes in the world gave impetus to a variety of scholarly pursuits that were as promising as they were innovative. Because I was working on new scientific ventures and approaches involving global law and global constitutional principles, I believed that (p.7) I was in an ideal position to help advance trends that accommodated developments within that emerging area—and to do so in an annual journal. Therefore, I decided to start the Yearbook project, the philosophical contents of which were then transfused into the inaugural editorial (mentioned before as Editorial 2001) that, in turn, can be considered a sort of Manifesto for what became the GCYILJ.

The Yearbook idea that can be described as the Founding Idea, namely, to provide readers with a systematic guide to understanding legally and politically dynamic events through up-to-date information and debate about the changing world system was the chosen vantage point because it allows academics, practitioners, and students alike, in addition to governments and communities, “to monitor, from more than one angle, the development of the international legal order and the building of the global community heralded at the end of the second millennium [thereby also providing them] with the opportunity of presenting their views and commenting on the most critical developments [within the] current international legal system” (Editorial 2001, at xxi). Since then, the sections devoted to “Articles” as well as “Notes and Comments” have served this purpose. Moreover, to accomplish one of the journal’s main objectives—if not the highest priority, further elements of evaluation were drawn from the case law of international courts and tribunals, as constantly updated and monitored, in the section entitled “Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals;” and with the aim of reflecting their recognized importance in the processes of change outlined above.

As a result, the project revolved around the three basic fields of, respectively, global law, global governance, and global justice. However, while pushing into these new fields, I tried not to forget the more traditional areas. These encompass the following:

  1. 1. Monitoring the most significant changes in the rules of the world/global community, such as the creation of emerging principles that are increasingly oriented toward new actors (individuals, peoples and ethnic groups, enterprises, governmental and non-governmental international organizations); the rise of a new set of international norms, to be called “Global Law,” its distinctive features and the differences between this new body of laws and traditional international law (inter-state law); the emergence of global constitutionalism and the construction of a global constitution.

  2. 2. Exploring the most significant structural changes in the world system, inter alia, the emergence of a global governance architecture linked to the establishment and development of international organizations and institutions of regional and global character carrying out functions “on behalf of” or “together with” states in the exercise of (what I described as) “co-management” of global public goods and “shared governance” of global issues for collective problem-solving (G. Ziccardi Capaldo, An Integrated System, GCYILJ 2001 (2001), at 71–120); the modification of decisional processes (global rule-formation, global law-enforcement system); the development of accountability, transparency, democratic participation, inclusiveness, effectiveness in international organizations’ activities and operations for the realization of collective aims.

  3. 3. Enhancing systematic analysis and classification of the international jurisprudence. The latter was another area that I aimed to promote. I had and still have the conviction that the jurisprudence should receive much more consideration and attention in the international context, especially the decisions of the ICJ. This Court has come to play a pivotal role in the creation of new rules/principles of global law, in the contribution to harmonious development of the global community law system, and in the legitimation of global governance. The best way to spread jurisprudence is to try to analyze, explain, and classify decisions by using the legal maxim format. I had already compiled (as mentioned earlier) a Repertory of decisions of International Court of Justice. For reasons having to do with its success, the working method of the GCYILJ was adopted from the mentioned historical precursor. The decisions of international courts and tribunals receive ample coverage in the Yearbook, providing (p.8) information in an easily accessible form and setting forth the points of law pronounced by international judicial bodies. This ensures that the journal can play “the role of intermediation between the case law and international scholars, practitioners and students” which constitutes its “peculiarity”—as the Manifesto says—while at the same time achieving the objective stated in it, i.e., “[to fill] the gap left by other journals that provide partial or sectorial information about judicial decisions” (Editorial 2001, at xxi).

The Yearbook project was enthusiastically welcomed by the scientific community, so I recruited some outstanding editors, including M. Cherif Bassiouni, Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Pierre M. Eisemann, Richard A. Falk, Thomas M. Franck, August Reinisch, Shabtai Rosenne, Philippe Sands, William A. Schabas, Louis B. Sohn, Antonio Tizzano, and Christian Tomuschat. Undoubtedly, this was the best thing I ever did.

II. Editorial Vision and Strategy

As pointed out in the previous section (under I), both systematic monitoring of the changes of the global legal order and reporting of the corresponding transformations of jurisprudence in a globalized world were the main elements of the vision that originally inspired the creation of the GCYILJ. This vision was subsequently realized under the auspices of leading publishers—by Oceana Publications (editions from 2001 to 2005) and, since the 2006 edition, by Oxford University Press. The GCYILJ is an international and peer-reviewed annual journal, which is included in Scopus and which, so far, has twenty editions on its publication record. Over the last two decades, the Yearbook has established itself as an authoritative resource on the most significant transformations in the global constitutive process.

The Yearbook makes it possible for its readers to monitor the development of the international order toward a legal system for a global community. In the course of accomplishing this goal, it provides detailed insights into the incremental changes that have occurred, and from several perspectives. While providing researchers and practitioners with access to a uniquely rich resource for the study of international jurisprudence, the Yearbook also promotes discussion on current issues that impact substantive and procedural aspects of global law and global governance. Each contribution affords the reader with an opportunity to reflect upon a piece of cutting-edge research.

In 2020 edition, the Yearbook continues to address, discuss, and monitor “the structuring process of a global community in which a coherent legal system for a universal human society is being built.” This succinct quote is from the inaugural editorial of this journal quoted above (Editorial 2001), and it is deliberately chosen to highlight the continuity of the journal’s overarching theme: global law and constitutionalism, global governance, and global jurisprudence.

Our editorial vision has been the same throughout our twenty years of journal history; but it has also evolved. As it happens, the vision has acquired an even greater validity today, inter alia, in the face of the crucial and urgent challenges concerning the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the economy, refugees and migrants, food, security, and the environment. The theoretical parts of the Yearbook have been gradually expanded as a consequence of ongoing events, whereas other parts have been added so as to allow for more extensive analysis, as I will explain in more detail later. These added parts contain accounts by leading scholars and judges from all over the world on current and future developments in global law and global policies (Part 3 and Part 6), as well as trends in global justice and the impact of judicial dialogue and cross fertilization of principles on the building of the new legal world order (Part 4). Overall, this is an innovative and important contribution to the studies on global changes.

As a platform for continuous analysis and assessment, the Yearbook welcomes interdisciplinary contributions too. In 2017, and in recognition of its impact on global law, (p.9) global constitutionalism, and global governance, ethics was listed among those areas and perspectives that form integral parts of the journal’s process of continuous renewal. This step is, in one sense, a logical one for the purpose of monitoring the development of the international order toward a legal system for a global community, albeit ethics currently must be viewed as an embryonic phenomenon. The journal aspires to respond to exactly such a phenomenon, especially since various precursors for its integration appear to contain a promise for a dynamic pattern.

In the twenty years of its existence, the journal has followed the construction of the global community. We have monitored various sectors of global governance and proposed innovative solutions on how to address the construction of a global legal system and the key challenges for the regulation of fundamental interests that affect the global community as a whole, including the following: environment (M. Fitzmaurice (2021) (2016) (2010), J. Gupta & Ü. Ceylan (2020), K. C. Sokol (2017), K. Khoday (2010), D. Shelton (2005)); health (G. Wang (2021), B. Mason Meier (2012), A. L. Taylor (2008)); energy (G. Carbonnier & S. de Jong (2012)); security ((L. R. Beres (2021) (2020) (2019), R. Thakur (2021) (2018), A. J. Bellami (2020), G. S. Corn & M. W. Meier (2020), Sh. Musa (2017), V. Popovski (2016), H. Koechler (2009)); trade (E.-U. Petersmann (2019), F. Seatzu (2019), L. Borlini (2017), G. Wang (2012)); communications and the sea (A. Matwijkiw et al. (2021), Y. Tanaka (2020) (2018) (2015), B. Kwiatkowska (2009)); migration (E. Guild & R. Wieland (2020), N. R. Micinski & Th. G. Weiss (2018)); terrorism (G.-J. A. Knoops (2011), G. Ziccardi Capaldo (2005)); religion (J. Haynes (2016)); ethics (A. Matwijkiw & B. Matwijkiw (2018) (2016); media and digital market (O. Pollicino (2019), R. Mansell (2014)); intellectual property (G. Dutfield & U. Suthersanen (2021) (2011)); arbitration (J. Jemielniak (2016), C. Cutler (2013)); the problems arising in various domains of international law (R. Kolb (2021) (2019) (2017) (2009) (2008) (2005), J. d’Aspremont (2016)), with a privileged look at the fundamental rights of individuals (A. J. Bellamy (2020), S. C. Grover (2019) (2018), H. Keller & R. Walther (2020), A. Matwijkiw & B. Matwijkiw (2020) (2019) (2007), J.-P. Perez-Leon-Acevedo (2018), M. Fitzmaurice (2016), C. Ryngaert (2016), L. Brilmayer & T. Huang (2015), P. H. Sand (2014), A. Plomer & D. Tsarapatsanis (2013), F. Tulkens et al. (2012) (2008), M. Ch. Bassiouni (2001)); globalization and the development of global law (G. Ziccardi Capaldo (2020) (2016) (2012) (2006) (2001), J. Bäumler (2018), P. A. Fernández Sánchez (2016), F. J. Garcia (2016), A. Matwijkiw & B. Matwijkiw (2016)), and the gradual construction of a global constitution (G. Ziccardi Capaldo (2018) (2016) (2001)); the state (Ch. Thornhill (2021) (2019), J. d’Aspremont (2019)), and the emergence of international legality through the limitation of the powers of states to the use of force and in the choice of forms of government (G. Ziccardi Capaldo (2013) (2004), Th. D. Gill (2005)); the effectiveness and the legitimacy of global governance (R. W. Mansbach (2021) (2015), E.-U. Petersmann (2021) (2013), G. Ziccardi Capaldo (2005)); the international economic law (E.-U. Petersmann (2007)); global courts and global justice (R. Falk (2021) (2007), F. J. Garcia (2014), G. Ziccardi Capaldo (2013) (2005), B. Kwiatkowska (2006) (2002), Ph. Couvreur (2004)); the international criminal justice system (M. Bohlander (2019) (2004) (2002), S. W. Becker (2021) (2017) (2014) (2010), V. Mitsilegas (2017), A. Oriolo (2012), M. Ch. Bassiouni (2007), G.-J. Knoops (2006), A. Matwijkiw (2006)).

III. Changes and Prospects

In the spirit of ensuring that the GCYILJ is an optimal service for its users, scholars, practitioners, and students, we have updated the layout and scope to improve the journal’s overall quality. Among the changes, I would like to mention the introduction of several new editorial features, in addition to the creation of more readily accessible and interactive content (with a smaller size, fewer pages, shorter features, and a new design) for online features.

(p.10) Furthermore, the editorial board has been expanded and broadened to increase its geographic diversity as well as the number of judiciary members to accommodate various international courts. In 2015, on the occasion of its fifteenth edition, the journal added new editors: Armin von Bogdandy, Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, Anja Matwijkiw, Nicholas Onuf, Ernest-Ulrich Petersmann, Fausto Pocar, Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Ramesh Thakur, Guiguo Wang, and Thomas G. Weiss. Each of these brings their own specialized expertise, drive and energy, and game-changing agenda. And the legal and intellectual avant-garde has always been an in-house feature of the GCYILJ. The pioneering spirit was a special trademark from the very outset. Unfortunately, over the years the Yearbook had to experience the loss of some of the giants in international law. Examples include M. Cherif Bassiouni, Florentino P. Feliciano, Thomas M. Franck, Héctor Gros Espiell, John G. Merrills, Shabtai Rosenne, Eric Stein, Soji Yamamoto, and Piero Ziccardi, all trailblazers and authoritative members of the Board of Editors. On a daily basis, we build on their legacy, thereby securing continuity.

As already mentioned and indeed as a team effort, we are moving in new directions, e.g., by virtue of having strengthened and expanded the journal’s initial scope, and having added new parts and new sections to respond to the needs we discover and which fall within the journal’s areas of interest. At the same time, we have used special issues to focus the attention of the scientific community on important evolving global issues that warrant further investigation. We did this in the journal special issue “Global Trends: Law, Policy & Justice: Essays in Honour of Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo” (M. Cherif Bassiouni et al. ed. (2013)) to highlight the surge of extraordinary challenging events in the field. New challenges may create additional changes in the GCYILJ’s future aims and scope, just as crucial values (legal, political, and otherwise) have historically motivated the Yearbook to embark on a new course, thereby adding new parts, as I will explain below.

A. A New Approach to Global Policies

Alongside the evolution of global politics, we have highlighted the current crisis in global governance (Y. H. Ferguson & R. W. Mansbach (2018), H. Koechler (2012), G. Modelski (2009), R. Thakur & Th. G. Weiss (2009)). Global institutions seem increasingly unable to manage global issues. Some of the causes point to the weakness of regional and worldwide international organizations, first of all the United Nations (UN), and more generally of multilateralism and the revival of nationalism; the lack of mandatory global multilateral decisions; the lack of democracy and the ineffectiveness of multilateral tools/instruments aimed at their production and implementation.

Nowadays we face new challenges with global impacts: health pandemics, environmental degradation, climate change, financial crises, cybercrimes, massive migration, and increasing marginalization of poor countries due to the market economy. Admittedly, these challenges reflect the failure of global institutions to address the issues adequately and in a timely fashion. Moreover, states have withdrawn from agreements such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (in June 2017, US President Donald J. Trump announced his intention to this effect. On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed the instrument to bring the United States back into the Paris Agreement)), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement (President Trump withdrew the United States in 2017), the Treaty on European Union (the United Kingdom withdrew in 2020, cf. Brexit), the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (President Trump withdrew the United States from this in May of 2018). International organizations seem to be in decline, and multilateralism gives in to nationalist pressures. All this makes the management of global public policy very difficult.

(p.11) Indeed, there are important deficiencies in contemporary international institutions and global public policies—like the WHO’s failure to manage the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, just to refer to recent events—that reflect the failure of the multilateral systems for global health security. As the UN Secretary-General correctly urged in his Report on Threats, Challenges and Change of 8 December 2004, “[w]e need global policies, and global institutions, which are efficient and effective.” Thus, planning and implementing global policies is becoming an imperative for the world, for the future survival and success of international organizations regional and worldwide. For this purpose, and beginning with the 2008 issue, the GCYILJ included a new part entitled “IN FOCUS—GLOBAL POLICIES AND LAW” (Part 3), exploring the globalization of politics, security, immigration, communication, economics, culture, and the environment, and examining in depth selected global public policies as a conceptual framework designed to foster international collective cooperation. Our aim was and still is to cover the majority of areas of global public activity. The effectiveness of such an approach is evident: many outstanding scholars and experts—like Louis R. Beres, Antonio Capaldo, Geoffrey S. Corn, Joyeeta Gupta, Hans Koechler, Richard W. Mansbach, Robin Mansell, George Modelski, Nicholas Onuf, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Ramesh Thakur, Guiguo Wang, Thomas G. Weiss—have been key contributors of innovative ideas and new solutions for policy-making processes providing scientific guidance in order to improve the management of global public policies. The goal of this new part was to increase, broaden, and accelerate access to new ideas, as well as offering concrete suggestions. This edition deserves special attention in its Part 3 on two different important topics: COVID-19PANDEMICS/EPIDEMICS AND GLOBAL POLICIES and THE BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE (BRI).

B. Scientific Accuracy and New Attention to International Jurisprudence

At the same time, the analysis from the monitoring of the global community revealed that the role of (what I call) “substitute decision maker” performed by international courts and tribunals is now faced with the crisis of global governance concerning institutions and norms. The response of the judiciary to various global issues is becoming increasingly fundamental. In the past few years, observed responses have been very surprising and at the same time directive. Global courts are engaged in emerging global policies (as well as in norm-implementation) in various areas of public activity. The role of international judges in the new world order consists in their significant contribution to the solution of issues concerning human rights, criminal law, security, terrorism, and the environment. Judicial regulation, especially those of the ICJ, contributes to “the development of the global legal order, guiding this development [ … ] thereby exercising a quasi-legislative function (G. Ziccardi Capaldo, Repertory (1995), at lix); indeed, there are cases concerning crucial sectors of international public life in which, through a growing practice and strengthening of the role of jurisprudence, the courts have identified and established basic principles and rules for the global community.

In turn, these findings have meant a noticeable increase in the attention afforded to international jurisprudence. The relevant Part 5: “GLOBAL JUSTICE—DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS,” divided into sections and primarily devoted to the highest judicial bodies, continues to report annually on significant international case law, as systematically ordered by legal maxims. Between 2009 and 2019, the Yearbook has undergone a process of gradual restructuring to update this part. The journal has hosted new sections dedicated to the jurisprudence of other international courts. It now has twelve sections compared to the eight initial ones. This is a great achievement for the journal, one that accords with a continuous pattern of growth, expansion, and innovation, together with an established record of high-quality publications in the field of international (p.12) jurisprudence, thereby presenting a wide spectrum of international case law and varied expert opinions at the highest levels. Continuing a Yearbook tradition, an Introductory Note in the form of a synopsis on the activity of each judicial body has been written by experts in the relevant field and by internationally renowned academics and judges—like Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Elizabeth Odio Benito, Joanna Gomula, Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops, Paolo Mengozzi, John G. Merrills, Rafael Nieto-Navia, Guido Raimondi, August Reinisch, Shabtai Rosenne, William A. Schabas Linos-Alexander Sicilianos, Antonio Tizzano, and Frans Viljoen. Furthermore, and beginning with the 2009 edition, we set up a new format for “legal maxims” whereby the most important elements of the judicial decisions are now distilled, while leaving aside the facts of the case as much as is possible. The extraction of legal maxims from the courts’ decisions, together with their elaboration and systematic classification, executed by talented researchers, is the core of the uniqueness of the journal. The remarkable development of the international courts and tribunals has made it increasingly difficult to closely follow the wealth of case law now emanating from the relevant jurisdictions, without the help of an intermediary. Therefore, both the originality and utility of the Yearbook lie precisely in its “intermediation” function.

Other examples of significantly enhanced attention to jurisprudence include the addition, beginning with the 2010 issue, of a new part dedicated to the “JURISPRUDENTIAL CROSS-FERTILIZATION” (Part 4). This initiative, which is intended to be “a useful resource for promoting the harmonization and development of global law,” a fact I also mentioned at the time of its launch, dedicated for the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the journal (G. Ziccardi Capaldo, Editorial, GCYILJ, 2010 (2011), at 207). Using comparative analysis, this part highlights the interconnections between the decisions of international courts and tribunals. To this end, we have chosen to focus on the areas of international law in which different international courts operate, and, therefore, this part consists of eight modules corresponding to the crucial areas of international life. In addition, an introductory module has been added to illustrate key concepts. The Yearbook is the first academic journal to present an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between courts. A comprehensive and complete survey by eminent international law scholars exploring, evaluating, and documenting this process has the potential to cultivate a favourable environment for the courts to promote judicial cooperation with a view to the possible harmonization of legal principles governing the global community. Professor Judge Cançado Trindade, with his outstanding annual entrances, together with other scholars who joined him over the years, contributes to this part of the journal, which contains important articles.

C. An Original Platform for Disseminating Academic Knowledge and Practical Experience

Finally, it is useful to mention Part 6, entitled “RECENT LINES OF INTERNATIONALIST THOUGHT,” included in the Yearbook since 2006, and which is an absolute novelty as a concept. The main objectives of this part are to focus on the thought of leading international law scholars “innovative” in their responses to challenges of contemporary global society, provide readers with an opportunity to study and interpret global issues from different perspectives, examine different methodologies, and explore ideas from different cultures. The increased value brought about by a particular modification, introduced in the 2017 edition, concerns the subject behind the original authorship—meaning that the scholar/judge who contributes thoughts and ideas is also talking about his own work. The Yearbook wishes to utilize this fact and indeed resource as yet another platform for disseminating research findings as well as communicating experiences of a more practical-professional nature. Professor Cançado Trindade’s 2017 contribution was the official inauguration of (p.13) the above-mentioned new features of Part 6. Being widely recognized for his very creative ideas and innovative approaches, the choice of Professor Cançado Trindade was a perfect one for this special occasion. The Yearbook used the form of an “autobiographical essay” to capture his experiences in different roles, from teaching international law to practicing as a judge and president of international courts. It is hardly surprising that one of the main intentions was and—after having launched the format successfully—continues to be to shine the light on the challenges faced by the emerging world society.

In the 2018 edition, the reader was also able to enjoy an exciting and intriguing encounter with Professor Thomas Weiss’s authoritative essay for the aforementioned part in question. In this piece, the author’s pursuit of global governance is explored both in his capacity as a scholar and as a practitioner. Scholarly-analytically, the essay addresses the contemporary reality of international organizations and multilateral cooperation. However, as former chair of the Academic Council on the UN System and as a recognized authority on international organizations, Professor Weiss draws on valuable professional experiences when he focuses on the world organization’s under-appreciated contribution to key ideas, norms, principles, and standards. Furthermore, Professor Hans Koechler explores, in the 2019 edition, the dialectic of power and law as exemplified in the ambiguous status of sovereignty, in particular in the Charter and practice of the UN Organization. The analysis results from his involvement with situations of international conflicts in the last several decades both as President of the International Progress Organization, a non-governmental organization in consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC), and as international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Lockerbie bombing trial in the Netherlands. Drawing on a mixture of expertise and masterful analysis of the detrimental impact of power politics on international law, he identifies the areas where inconsistencies would have to be eliminated in order to make all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the state itself, accountable to laws.

In this current 2020 edition, our twentieth anniversary edition, we welcome David Nelken, a distinguished academic working in the fields of comparative criminal justice and comparative sociology of law, “into the big tent called ‘recent lines of internationalist thought’ ” (here borrowing his beautiful expression!). His contribution on the role of global social indicators constitutes an important support for jurists/scholars interested in the role of transnational and global law, with a specific view to building a global community and explaining how standards of behaviour are established and spread beyond the national state. His analysis and contextualization draw on his creative research and experience to achieve the goal of identifying the key features of global social indicators and to explain these as a form of governance and soft regulation. Consequently, the indicators are designed to measure or produce compliance or stimulate change and, as such, to either support the rules or shape behaviours. Professor Nelken’s essay is a proto-example of the stated objective of the section, that of open-mindedness “to ideas and perspectives coming from other disciplines.” Professor Nelken’s premise that “[t]he borders of academic subjects or branches of law can be as alternately permeable, or as hostile, as national frontiers” (infra, at 996) functions to establish a “permeability paradigm” that is aligned with my own beliefs and understanding of best practices. It is as fortunate as it is significant that this happened on the occasion of an important anniversary of the Yearbook!

Other important developments at the journal have come from the opportunities presented by the technological online revolution. In 2016, the Yearbook was redesigned partly to accommodate this. Previously, it was published in two volumes, but it then became a publication consisting of one volume. Besides improving the user experience of the print version, this change also improved the e-book and its Oxford Scholarship Online (OSO) version. The introduction of the Yearbook’s electronic version, launched in 2013, was a decisive step towards wider accessibility. The same is true of the journal’s new website. (p.14) This provides much more information on the journal, including the archive of the editions from 2001 to present date.

IV. Conclusion

The changes illustrated above reflect the fact that the journal’s team effort to further improve the outlet’s scientific performance is a process, in incremental advances, that takes place over time. Guided by a comprehension of both history and present-day realities, the Yearbook not only demonstrates the need but also provides the opportunity to examine the global community (r)evolution in order to understand current challenges and future directions.

In speaking of the future course, as hitherto, the GCYILJ will be mainly devoted to ensuring its progress and continuity. It is reasonable to believe that useful results can be achieved with our usual innovative approach, walking on the path paved so far, in the search of continuous growth, the promotion of improvements in scientific research, and speed-up strategies for the processes involved—and all without sacrificing research quality or rigor. Providing continuous improvements is essential to succeed and to maintain the indisputable prestige that the GCYILJ has achieved. With such an approach, so I as the General Editor am convinced, we can support positive and constructive development across all areas of the Yearbook’s scope. In turn, this will enable the journal to continue to strengthen its essential role in research and its reputation as a leading journal in the field.

The remarkable results achieved up until this point in time reflect the constantly increasing quality and impact of the Yearbook’s output as well as the dedication of the editorial team to which the continued growth in the relevancy of the journal owes much. Thus, I express my warmest thanks to the members of the Editorial and Advisory Boards, authors, reviewers, and assistants, for their dedicated contributions to the continuing success of the journal. I extend my thanks to the Oxford University Press team, especially the current editor, Dennis Gargano, who, in addition to taking care of the production of the journal with great skill and dedication, has been heavily involved in the process of growth and change.

9 March 2020

Notes:

(*) Emeritus Professor of International Law, University of Salerno, Italy, General Editor. I would like to thank Dr. Anja Matwijkiw (Professor of Ethics & Human Rights, Indiana University Northwest; 2019–2020 Fulbright Distinguished Chair of Public International Law, Lund University, Sweden) for her helpful comments on this chapter. The usual disclaimer applies.

(1) Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo, THE PILLARS OF GLOBAL LAW (2008); republished (2018).

(2) ID., TERRORISMO INTERNAZIONALE E GARANZIE COLLETTIVE/ INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND COLLECTIVE GUARANTEES (1990).

(3) Id., LE SITUAZIONI TERRITORIALI ILLEGITTIME NEL DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE/UNLAWFUL TERRITORIAL SITUATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1977).

(4) Id., REPERTORY OF DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE/RÉPERTOIRE DE LA JURISPRUDENCE DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE (1947–1992), VOL. I: SUBSTANTIVE LAW/DROIT MATÉRIEL, VOL. II: LAW OF PROCEDURE/DROIT PROCÉDURAL (English and French) (1995) (hereinafter Repertory). Id., Verticalità della comunità internazionale e Nazioni Unite/Verticalization of the International Community and United Nations, in INTERVENTI DELLE NAZIONI UNITE (Paolo Picone ed., 1995) 61–99.