Tamar Megiddo
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, International Relations, Faculty Member
- Public International Law, International Human Rights Law, International trade law, Legal Theory, International Relations Theory, International Refugee Law, and 51 moreStatehood, Fundamental Rights and Human Dignity, International Law, History of Human Rights, Human Dignity, Asylum Law, International Humanitarian Law, History of International Law, International Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration, Law of Armed Conflict, Comparative Human Rights Law, International Law and Global Justice (in Law/International Law), International Courts And Tribunals, Laws of War, International Court of Justice, Human Rights Theory, Immigration Law, Jurisprudence, International Investment Arbitration, International economic law, Just War, European Court of Human Rights, Social and Political Theories of Justice & Human Rights, Legitimacy and Authority, Just War Theory, International Criminal Court, Responsibility to Protect, International Arbitration, WTO law, TWAIL - Third World Approaches to International Law, Law and philosophy, International Environmental Law, Philosophy Of Law, Sovereignty, Global Justice, Critical Legal Theory, Law and culture, Humanitarian Intervention, Sociology of Law, Critical Legal Studies, Human Rights Law, International Investment Law, Law of Treaties, Political Theory, Legal Philosophy, Law and Technology, Cyber Law, Information Technology Law, Information and Communication Technology Law, Technology Law, and Science and Technology Studiesedit
- Dr. Tamar Megiddo is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerus... moreDr. Tamar Megiddo is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research addresses public international law and law and technology. She also serves as a research affiliate at the 'Three Generations of Human Rights' ERC Research Project at the Hebrew University's Faculty of Law.
Megiddo has previously served as a an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law at the College of Law and Business. She has received her Doctorate and Master’s degree in International Legal Studies from New York University School of Law (J.S.D. ’16, LL.M. 12’), and her bachelor’s from the Hebrew University (LL.B. ’09).edit
Research Interests:
This chapter investigates the role of ‘Data-Driven Customary International Law’ in shifting power relations with respect to the identification of customary international norms. Evidence of states’ practice and legal positions is required... more
This chapter investigates the role of ‘Data-Driven Customary International Law’ in shifting power relations with respect to the identification of customary international norms. Evidence of states’ practice and legal positions is required to determine that a new norm of customary international law has crystallized. And yet, international courts have often settled for anecdotal evidence and impressionistic analysis. However, recent academic works have crowd-sourced data collection, compiled big datasets, and applied computerized analysis methods to make comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the development of customary norms. I argue that this new mode of knowledge production may democratize both the data collected (giving greater weight to smaller states from the global periphery) and the potential contributors to the production process (including lawyers from different countries and language capabilities). Nevertheless, such production requires scientific sophistication and resources, which once more give actors from rich, developed countries a greater role in developing the law.
Research Interests:
Governments regularly rely on citizens’ cooperation in exercising their authority, including the enforcement of rules. This is not only common, but also a necessary practice in a legal system. Technology makes such reliance easier,... more
Governments regularly rely on citizens’ cooperation in exercising their authority, including the enforcement of rules. This is not only common, but also a necessary practice in a legal system. Technology makes such reliance easier, facilitating increased enforcement of law at little cost. Emergency provides an added legitimizing logic, encouraging citizens’ cooperation and leading them to uncritically follow the government’s lead to reduce the risk to the nation and to themselves. This article considers governments’ crowdsourcing citizens to monitor and surveil other citizens. One central concern this practice raises is that it allows governments to circumvent the limits of their legitimate authority and to augment their power while also obscuring the actor responsible for the surveillance and enforcement action. Consequently, accountability and public oversight over the government are diminished. Where does conventional enlisting of cooperation from law-abiding citizens end, and cr...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Labor migration is often regulated internationally through bilateral treaties signed between states, determining the conditions under which migrants from one state (or both) may travel to the other state and reside there in order to work.... more
Labor migration is often regulated internationally through bilateral treaties signed between states, determining the conditions under which migrants from one state (or both) may travel to the other state and reside there in order to work. These instruments are sometimes designated as memoranda of understanding and regarded as nonbinding agreements. Many remain unpublished and undisclosed. This Article assesses these design choices critically. It considers the interaction between bilateralism, obscurity and nonbindingness. It evaluates and rejects possible justifications for obscurity and nonbindingness. Finally, it argues that these design choices should be resisted. Since bilateral labor agreements do not regulate strictly the bilateral relationship between two states, but rather create rights and obligations for various third-party individuals, they should be required to meet a rule of law requirement of transparency.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
On February 17th, 2008, The Republic of Kosovo declared independence. This declaration was met with mixed international reaction. At the heart of the controversy lie concerns as to the possible effect and precedential value that the case... more
On February 17th, 2008, The Republic of Kosovo declared independence. This declaration was met with mixed international reaction. At the heart of the controversy lie concerns as to the possible effect and precedential value that the case of Kosovo may have on the international law of statehood. In this paper, we examine the case of Kosovo against the background of the international law of statehood as it has evolved over the past century. We argue that the classical Montevideo criteria for Statehood have not lost their importance, as they fundamentally capture the elements essential for an entity to effectively function as a state. Nevertheless, they are no longer the only yardstick. Additional considerations have played a significant role in borderline cases during recent decades, such as the right to self determination, adherence to peremptory norms of international law, and further considerations such as commitment to protection of human rights or the adoption of democratic institutions. When examining the circumstances of Kosovo, we arrive at the conclusion that it did not meet the classical criteria at the time of its declaration of independence. Consequently, if the independence of Kosovo is to be recognized, it would be reasonable to argue that other factors have had a role in overcoming such deficiency. We then turn to inquire whether these considerations may affect the prospects of a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence. We find that while in some respects a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence seems to be better situated for recognition than Kosovo's, in other respects the conditions seem to have not yet fully matured.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Adopting a comprehensive plan to fight tropical diseases, Brazil came across an unexpected hurdle: its international trade obligations. Its ban on the importation of used and recycled tires, which serve as mosquito breeding sites, was... more
Adopting a comprehensive plan to fight tropical diseases, Brazil came across an unexpected hurdle: its international trade obligations. Its ban on the importation of used and recycled tires, which serve as mosquito breeding sites, was challenged by its trading partners in both the Southern Common Market and the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately for Brazil, the two international tribunals rendered conflicting rulings and Brazil was thus forced to choose between disregarding one of the rulings, or abandoning its plan in order to comply with both. Brazil’s story has been viewed as the epitome of the dangers of international law’s fragmentation, resulting from the proliferation of international legal regimes, and particularly international tribunals. Challenging this accepted narrative, this article argues that Brazil’s difficult situation served in fact as a catalyst of efforts of international legal integration. Rather than becoming paralyzed or turning its back on international...
Research Interests:
Despite its central contribution to the construction of the global legal order, the United States has long been perceived to exclude itself from the reach of international law. Its exceptionalist image has been reinforced by statements of... more
Despite its central contribution to the construction of the global legal order, the United States has long been perceived to exclude itself from the reach of international law. Its exceptionalist image has been reinforced by statements of political leaders, federal law provisions, and court decisions. This Article argues, however, that in order to appropriately assess international law’s standing in the United States, one must consider not only the position of its formal government but also the interpretation, application, and challenge of international law by non-State actors. Moreover, it stresses the importance of studying not only elite actors’ engagement with international law but also that of individuals, groups, and organizations outside the formal bureaucracy. The Article surveys interventions by government officials, producers, consumers, and civil society representatives in the context of a U.S. policy-making process initiated pursuant to a World Trade Organization ruling....
Research Interests:
The internet and social media have revolutionized activism. In response, governments seeking to curb opposition have recently learned to target the very same technologies that gave rise to activist empowerment in the first place. This... more
The internet and social media have revolutionized activism. In response, governments seeking to curb opposition have recently learned to target the very same technologies that gave rise to activist empowerment in the first place. This article challenges the accepted framework for discussing these efforts by governments, focused on surveillance and privacy. It argues, first, that governments’ actions should be evaluated in the aggregate and understood as measures of digital domination, whose harm extends beyond the harm to individual privacy. Applying the republican concept of freedom as non-domination, the article suggests that the core harm resulting from governments’ actions is to activists’ freedom. Since activism is a check on the government, these measures also have devastating consequences for the freedom of the citizenry as a whole. Second, the article argues that governments’ reliance on digital militias allows them to sidestep the limits of their legitimate authority, therefore posing a grave threat to the rule of law. Finally, third, the article underscores that governments deploy digital measures of control beyond surveillance. Rather, they (1) gather information on activists; (2) disrupt communication channels; (3) flood online conversation to drown out the opposition; (4) deploy the state’s coercive power based on information gathered, and (5) mobilize digital militias to bully activists online. The article therefore proposes a new conceptual framework: rather than discuss political freedom through the lens of privacy, we ought to retain appreciation of privacy’s importance but refocus the discussion around individual freedom. Similarly, rather than subsume government control measures under the category of surveillance, we ought to recognize the much broader set of tools employed by them.
Research Interests: Political Theory, Privacy, Democratic Theory, Surveillance (Sociology), Surveillance Studies, and 14 moreDeliberative Democracy, Media and Democracy, Freedom Of Expression, Surveillance, Authoritarianism, Social Science Research Network, Privacy and data protection, Freedom, Data Privacy, Law and Technology, Privacy Law, Information and Communication Technology Law, Law and Emerging Technologies, and Legal and Democratic Theory
International law, we are taught, is the law made by states to govern their relations. Unsurprisingly, international law scholarship has traditionally embraced a corresponding methodological statism. Despite common perceptions, statism... more
International law, we are taught, is the law made by states to govern their relations. Unsurprisingly, international law scholarship has traditionally embraced a corresponding methodological statism. Despite common perceptions, statism remains dominant: at most, elite non-state actors are studied alongside states. This article advocates a turn to ‘constructivist methodological individualism’: a commitment to studying the making, interpretation, implementation, development and breaking of international law by ordinary, individual people, together with the reciprocal engagement of international law with them.
This paper begins with the observation that, when deciding on a course of action for themselves and their states, individuals sometimes take international law into account, and it sometimes serves for them a reason or a ground for action.... more
This paper begins with the observation that, when deciding on a course of action for themselves and their states, individuals sometimes take international law into account, and it sometimes serves for them a reason or a ground for action. It consequently asks why international law would serve as a reason or a ground for action, and whether there is anything international law could do to further encourage people’s consideration of it. The paper proposes a theoretical model which aims to account for those instances in which international law seems to exert a “compliance pull” on individual people. The model suggests there are two types of allegiance to a legal system: a person’s disposition to comply with legal rules, and a person’s fidelity to the system. A legal system's adherence to principles of legality is important for the generation and maintenance of both.
This Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private... more
This Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post–conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusion and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating g...
This article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post-conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states' authority to take or limit private... more
This article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post-conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states' authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post-conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusiveness and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.
Research Interests:
This chapter investigates the role of “Big Data” analysis and data crowdsourcing in shifting power relations with respect to the identification of customary international law. Evidence of states’ practice and legal positions is required... more
This chapter investigates the role of “Big Data” analysis and data crowdsourcing in shifting power relations with respect to the identification of customary international law. Evidence of states’ practice and legal positions is required in order to determine that a new norm of customary international law has crystallized. And yet, international courts have often settled for anecdotal evidence and impressionistic analysis. However, recent academic works have crowdsourced data collection, compiled big datasets and applied computerized analysis methods to make comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the development of customary norms. I argue that this new mode of knowledge production may democratize both the data collected (giving greater weight to smaller states from the global periphery) and the potential contributors to the production process (including lawyers from different countries and language capabilities). Nevertheless, such production requires scientific sophistication and resources, which once more give actors from rich, developed countries a greater role in developing the law.
Research Interests:
The internet and social media have revolutionized activism. In response, governments seeking to curb opposition have recently learned to target the very same technologies that gave rise to activist empowerment in the first place. This... more
The internet and social media have revolutionized activism. In response, governments seeking to curb opposition have recently learned to target the very same technologies that gave rise to activist empowerment in the first place. This article challenges the accepted framework for discussing these efforts by governments, focused on surveillance and privacy. It argues, first, that governments’ actions should be evaluated in the aggregate and understood as measures of digital domination, whose harm extends beyond the harm to individual privacy. Applying the republican concept of freedom as non-domination, the article suggests that the core harm resulting from governments’ actions is to activists’ freedom. Since activism is a check on the government, these measures also have devastating consequences for the freedom of the citizenry as a whole. Second, the article argues that governments’ reliance on digital militias allows them to sidestep the limits of their legitimate authority, therefore posing a grave threat to the rule of law. Finally, third, the article underscores that governments deploy digital measures of control beyond surveillance. Rather, they (1) gather information on activists; (2) disrupt communication channels; (3) flood online conversation to drown out the opposition; (4) deploy the state’s coercive power based on information gathered, and (5) mobilize digital militias to bully activists online. The article therefore proposes a new conceptual framework: rather than discuss political freedom through the lens of privacy, we ought to retain appreciation of privacy’s importance but refocus the discussion around individual freedom. Similarly, rather than subsume government control measures under the category of surveillance, we ought to recognize the much broader set of tools employed by them.
Research Interests: Democracy and Cyber-Democracy Theory and Practice, Political Theory, Privacy, Democratic Theory, Surveillance (Sociology), and 15 moreSurveillance Studies, Deliberative Democracy, Media and Democracy, Freedom Of Expression, Surveillance, Privacy (Law), Authoritarianism, Surveillance, personal data, social sorting, privacy, camera surveillance, identification systems, internet surveillance, biometrics, Privacy and data protection, Freedom, Data Privacy, Law and Technology, Information and Communication Technology Law, Law and Emerging Technologies, and Legal and Democratic Theory
International law, we are taught, is the law made by states to govern their relations. Unsurprisingly, international law scholarship has traditionally embraced a corresponding methodological statism. Despite common perceptions, statism... more
International law, we are taught, is the law made by states to govern their relations. Unsurprisingly, international law scholarship has traditionally embraced a corresponding methodological statism. Despite common perceptions, statism remains dominant: at most, elite non-state actors are studied alongside states. This article advocates a turn to ‘constructivist methodological individualism’: a commitment to studying the making, interpretation, implementation, development and breaking of international law by ordinary, individual people, together with the reciprocal engagement of international law with them.
Research Interests:
Despite its central contribution to the construction of the global legal order, the United States has long been perceived to exclude itself from the reach of in-ternational law. Its exceptionalist image has been re-inforced by statements... more
Despite its central contribution to the construction of the global legal order, the United States has long been perceived to exclude itself from the reach of in-ternational law. Its exceptionalist image has been re-inforced by statements of political leaders, federal law provisions, and court decisions. This Article ar-gues, however, that in order to appropriately assess international law’s standing in the United States, one must consider not only the position of its formal gov-ernment but also the interpretation, application, and challenge of international law by non-State actors. Moreover, it stresses the importance of studying not only elite actors’ engagement with international law but also that of individuals, groups, and organizations outside the formal bureaucracy.
The Article surveys interventions by government offi-cials, producers, consumers, and civil society repre-sentatives in the context of a U.S. policy-making pro-cess initiated pursuant to a World Trade Organization ruling. It shows that, contrary to the United States’ exceptionalist image, U.S. actors of all stripes in-voked and relied on international law extensively, thereby carving a space for it as a non-negligible consideration in the decision-making process. There-fore, the Article argues that accounting for non-State stakeholders is imperative in evaluating the domestic standing of international law.
The Article surveys interventions by government offi-cials, producers, consumers, and civil society repre-sentatives in the context of a U.S. policy-making pro-cess initiated pursuant to a World Trade Organization ruling. It shows that, contrary to the United States’ exceptionalist image, U.S. actors of all stripes in-voked and relied on international law extensively, thereby carving a space for it as a non-negligible consideration in the decision-making process. There-fore, the Article argues that accounting for non-State stakeholders is imperative in evaluating the domestic standing of international law.
Research Interests:
Adopting a comprehensive plan to fight tropical diseases, Brazil came across an unexpected hurdle: its international trade obligations. Its ban on the importation of used and recycled tires, which serve as mosquito breeding sites, was... more
Adopting a comprehensive plan to fight tropical diseases, Brazil came across an unexpected hurdle: its international trade obligations. Its ban on the importation of used and recycled tires, which serve as mosquito breeding sites, was challenged by its trading partners in both the Southern Common Market and the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately for Brazil, the two international tribunals rendered conflicting rulings and Brazil was thus forced to choose between disregarding one of the rulings, or abandoning its plan in order to comply with both. Brazil's story has been viewed as the epitome of the dangers of international law's fragmentation, resulting from the proliferation of international legal regimes, and particularly international tribunals. Challenging this accepted narrative, this article argues that Brazil's difficult situation served in fact as a catalyst of efforts of international legal integration. Rather than becoming paralyzed or turning its back on international law, Brazil remained committed to its international legal obligations and proactively and creatively worked to reconcile them without giving up its domestic agenda. The article further challenges the claim, dominant in fragmentation literature, that international law is inevitably headed towards increasing fragmentation. I argue that, like Brazil, states faced with conflicting guidance from international legal regimes make efforts to find a common ground among their various obligations, one still compatible with their own goals. Furthermore, states then strive to convince their peers as well as international monitoring bodies of their proposed solution. In doing so, they promote harmonization of international legal norms and integration among international law's different legal regimes.
Research Interests:
Interdisciplinary research of international law has been on the rise in the past two and half decades. Scholars have adopted widely varying disciplines, methodologies and theoretical frameworks to investigate international legal behavior.... more
Interdisciplinary research of international law has been on the rise in the past two and half decades. Scholars have adopted widely varying disciplines, methodologies and theoretical frameworks to investigate international legal behavior. This chapter argues, however, that a lion’s share of the literature on international legal behavior has understated the role of individual people in international law. Although probably any scholar working in the field of international law would agree that international law is made, implemented, changed or broken by people, this ontological insight has not found its way into influential paradigmatic views of international law. Consequently, it has not been adequately embedded in methodologies, theoretical accounts and research agendas. The chapter offers a review of the scholarship, aiming to substantiate its critical claim while also pointing to some implications of the literature’s entrenched statism, and thus to benefits likely to arise from forsaking it. The review lays the ground for further work developing a new paradigm more attentive to individuals.
Research Interests:
This chapter revisits conclusions on the evolving law of statehood outlined in a previous paper, and assesses whether these conclusions are consistent with developments in the Palestinian quest for independence
Research Interests:
On February 17th, 2008, The Republic of Kosovo declared independence. This declaration was met with mixed international reaction. At the heart of the controversy lie concerns as to the possible effect and precedential value that the case... more
On February 17th, 2008, The Republic of Kosovo declared independence. This declaration was met with mixed international reaction. At the heart of the controversy lie concerns as to the possible effect and precedential value that the case of Kosovo may have on the international law of statehood. In this paper, we examine the case of Kosovo against the background of the international law of statehood as it has evolved over the past century. We argue that the classical Montevideo criteria for Statehood have not lost their importance, as they fundamentally capture the elements essential for an entity to effectively function as a state. Nevertheless, they are no longer the only yardstick. Additional considerations have played a significant role in borderline cases during recent decades, such as the right to self determination, adherence to peremptory norms of international law, and further considerations such as commitment to protection of human rights or the adoption of democratic institutions. When examining the circumstances of Kosovo, we arrive at the conclusion that it did not meet the classical criteria at the time of its declaration of independence. Consequently, if the independence of Kosovo is to be recognized, it would be reasonable to argue that other factors have had a role in overcoming such deficiency. We then turn to inquire whether these considerations may affect the prospects of a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence. We find that while in some respects a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence seems to be better situated for recognition than Kosovo's, in other respects the conditions seem to have not yet fully matured.