Oxonian at BYU Law

No, not me. This is someone important. Dr. Stefan Talmon, a German barrister and University Lecturer in Public International Law and Tutorial Fellow, St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford, will be speaking on October 18th at 12:00 pm in the Moot Court room at the BYU Law School on the topic of “The U.N. Security Council as a Global Legislator.” This lecture derives from his recent law review article The Security Council as World Legislature, American Journal of International Law 99 (2005), pp. 175-193. I will try to make it since this is one of my primary interests in the field of law and relates somewhat to my own law review comment about the countermajoritarian difficulty and the international criminal court (2003), in which I specifically examine the role of international tribunals as super-legislatures.

Dr. Talmon, for his part, does not “believe in theory for theory’s sake. In fact, theory, more often than not, not only fails to enhance the understanding of a problem but creates a tertium quid which stands, like a bank of fog on a still day, between the observer and the contours of the ground which call for investigation.” This is an interesting perspective, and one which I am eager to see him apply to the topic of international policy, adjudication, and legislation.

2 Responses to Oxonian at BYU Law

  1. Clark Goble says:

    It seems to me that the consistent problem with the UN is first the idea of one country one vote (or worse the situation in the security council). Then there is the idea that somehow all nations are equal. I have a hard time giving say Nigeria the same vote that the US does. Finally there’s the problem (quite valid) of whether such an organization would be used for political purposes. Even if you have a fair trial (which I am skeptical of), the mere fact that the US might have to be consistently defending its leadership makes me skeptical.

    That’s not to say that I’m opposed to a real world court. And it certainly doesn’t mean I think the US is without sin. I think that in trade law in particular it is grossly hypocritical at times and frequently too Machivillian for my tastes. But I’ve never seen a compelling argument for any court right now . Beyond the world trade court which has better ground simply due to the power of formalized trade wars against offenders.


    Posted by Clark

  2. Anonymous says:

    Call me a super Westphallian, but I really really really don’t like the idea of a world court, world legislature, or anything that takes the soveriengty of a nation state. And be honest, most conservative, and a goodly number of liberals feel exactly the same way when it gets right down to it. Is it a good idea for the future, yeah, but not until we are a whole lot more globalized. Or maybe better put, when Nigeria’s vote SHOULD carry as much weight as the US’s vote does. 

    Posted by The Gooch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: