We deal in EJIL with the world we live in – often with its worst and most violent pathologies, often with its most promising signs of hope for a better world. But, inevitably, since our vehicle is scholarship, we reify this world. Roaming Charges is designed not just to offer a moment of aesthetic relief, but to remind us of the ultimate subject of our scholarly reflections: we alternate between photos of places – the world we live in – and photos of people – who we are, the human condition. We eschew the direct programmatic photograph: people shot up; the ravages of pollution and all other manner of photojournalism.
Since the publication of the widely quoted book by Eyal Benvenisti on The International Law of Occupation, there seems to be a generally accepted premise that Article 64 of the IV Geneva Convention is applicable to all types of laws (including commercial laws) and that, therefore, its legal regime replaced Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. With all due respect, this article argues that such approach is wrongfully grounded. Furthermore, almost no author seems to give any relevance to the formal obligation imposed by the IV Geneva Convention to publish (in the language of the inhabitants) the commercial law norms enacted by the occupying power.
The essay 'The Laws of Occupation and Commercial Law Reform in Occupied Territories: Clarifying a Widespread Misunderstanding' accuses my 1993 book of fostering the 'misleading' contention that Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 recognizes the authority of occupants to modify all types of laws (and not only penal laws), beyond the limited scope of legislative authority recognized under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. The criticism is unconvincing for several reasons. I limit my response to the claim that my interpretation of Geneva 64 is a misunderstanding, spelling out in more detail the discussion in the book. Addressing this claim offers an opportunity to gain insight not only into the specific meaning of Geneva 64 but also into the more general question of how to read and assess travaux préparatoires of complex multilateral treaties.
I thank Professor Benvenisti for his response to my article and hope that this discussion will be helpful and fruitful. Nevertheless, I concur with Pictet that Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations 'imposes obligations of a general nature on the Occupying Power', while Article 64 of the IV Geneva Convention contains a specific exception for penal legislation. Therefore, Article 43 HR still remains the applicable norm regarding commercial law reform in occupied territories.
This symposium on interwar international law jurist Nicolas Politis is part of EJIL's long-standing project to reappraise the European tradition of international law. This brief Editorial Note has two aims. First, it casts an inward – if furtive – glance at the enterprise of intellectual history in international law at large. Secondly, it explains the choice of Nicolas Politis as the focus of this symposium as well as the part played by the five essays featured therein.
This article sketches an intellectual portrait of Nicolas Politis (1872–1942), a liberal Greek jurist and a naturalized Frenchman of the interwar period. The main lines of his thought's evolution and his socio-political engagement over the course of his life are considered typical of a new type of intellectual, the 'government intellectual', who appeared on the international scene at the beginning of the 20th century. The profile of the 'government intellectual', proposed to study his career, is closely tied to the scholar's discourse concerning politics. It allows one to observe the emergence of a space of intellectual production and of institutional positions, relatively autonomous vis-à-vis specifically national considerations, but always in the service of their interests, which were in liberal thought conceived as consistent with the interests of international society. The richness of his career allows one to consider the intellectual engagement of jurists in new terms, by closely associating the strategies of individual actors with the various contexts that they had themselves contributed to creating.
This article attempts to shed some light on the French Sociological Law School, its doctrinal presuppositions, social surroundings, and different personal expressions, focusing then on the contribution to that doctrine of one of its major exponents, Nicholas Politis.
Prolific as a scholar, active in the League of Nations, and agent for Greece before the Permanent Court, Nicolas Politis is remembered today as a key figure both in the development of international legal doctrine and in the organization of international political relations. This short article examines three of Politis' texts – the first an early foray into scholarship dealing with issues arising from the 1897 Greek–Turkish War, the second a set of mid-career lectures at the Hague Academy of International Law, and the third the posthumously published La morale internationale, a work of considerable ambition that never quite managed to find its audience. The article's chief aim is to demonstrate that Politis' trajectory was marked by recurring appeals to extra-legal ideas and arguments – a broadly anti-formalistic tendency which made its influence felt with increasing visibility over time, but which was present even in his earliest and most conventional work.
This article focuses on Nicholas Politis' efforts to outlaw war and define aggression, and places them within the progress narrative of the interwar international law discourse. This narrative is defined by its rejection of sovereignty; its belief in codification; and the recognition of the individual as a subject of international law. Politis' projects envisage international law as a means towards an ecumenical world order built around individuals.
Nicolas Politis argued in 1935 that the law of neutrality was obsolete, a product of the international anarchy of the times, doomed to be replaced by a new centralized international community. His vision of the League of Nations ended in the fire of World War II but his prediction proved to be mostly true. In the collective security system created by the UN Charter and its prohibition of the use of force, the traditional rules of neutrality do not find scope of application. Yet, transposed into fundamental principles of humanitarian law, they continue to rule over peace-keeping and humanitarian operations. In addition, they complement the existing rules for military action mandated by the UN Security Council, especially during operations at sea. He was essentially right: the institution had to change and it has changed.