|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
044472
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1972.
|
| Description |
xvi, 292p.
|
| Standard Number |
0198253028
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 011127 | 341.552/DHA 011127 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
187407
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On 31 October 2021, an agreement was signed between Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu that established a commission with the power to request an advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Since ITLOS’s advisory jurisdiction has been tested in only one case, I explain and evaluate the procedural obstacles facing this commission, as well as the potential questions it might submit to ITLOS. The analysis draws upon the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice to indicate how ITLOS could articulate and apply its jurisdiction in an advisory case. I conclude that although there appear to be few insurmountable obstacles to securing ITLOS’s jurisdiction, care must be taken by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law to ensure that the questions presented to ITLOS are carefully drafted so that ITLOS has no concerns over the judicial propriety of giving an advisory opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
185292
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
034588
|
|
|
|
|
| Edition |
Csabafi
|
| Publication |
Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1971.
|
| Description |
xxvi, 197p.
|
| Standard Number |
9024750156
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 011224 | 341.46/CSA 011224 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
113823
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why do states build international courts, submit cases, and enforce court judgments? This article examines the role of a court that is neither a "decider" nor an "information provider." Litigation is costly and does not reveal private information. The court's ruling is not binding and bargaining can occur before and after the court has ruled. Nevertheless, an alternative dispute resolution mechanism emerges: court rulings can coordinate endogenous multilateral enforcement. Disinterested states will enforce to ensure that they can profitably use the court in the future. Accepting jurisdiction of the court allows a state to make efficiency-enhancing "trades," winning high-value disputes in exchange for losing low-value disputes. This is possible because litigation is a screening device: states only sue when they derive relatively high value from the disputed asset. The use of the court as a coordination device for multilateral enforcement allows for the existence of a court with endogenous enforcement and jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
113043
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In spite of the fact that substantial progress has been made in the improvement of relations between China and Taiwan, 1
there have been no talks on sensitive political issues. Beijing's proposal for a cross-strait peace agreement is put on hold. Disagreement over the sovereignty of one China and the political reality in Taiwan have conspired to create an apparent impasse and contributed to an indefinite delay of the negotiations. At the moment, a large section of Taiwanese people do not seem to want this peace agreement. The ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) cannot afford to start negotiations without a strong domestic consensus. This article examines the political situation in Taiwan, analyzes the main obstacles to reaching a cross-strait peace agreement, and explores possible solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
156862
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
171144
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The doctrine of constructive presence allows a coastal state to pursue and arrest a vessel on the high seas, even though that vessel may have never entered the state’s jurisdiction. This is because the vessel’s presence can be “constructed” inside the state’s jurisdiction when a connection can be found with other craft, suspected of having committed an illegal act there. This article explores the impact of the Tribunal’s decision in the Arctic Sunrise case (2015) on constructive presence. It shows that the necessary link between the vessels is now found when there exists evidence of participation in an illegal scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
151899
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
102582
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this contribution, we consider the relevance of international human rights law to climate change. We review the widely agreed understanding that climate change interferes with human rights. We then examine how a particular State or States may be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts that are caused by contributions to climate change emanating from activities that are under that State's or those States' jurisdiction. We focus on human beings' actions that the best available science indicates with a high degree of certainty are responsible for climate change and the consequential interference with the human rights of individuals that are caused by the adverse impacts of climate change. We also explore the consequences of international human rights law for States' responsibility to cooperate to achieve adequate international action on climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
169307
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Space exploration is a trailblazing project endowed with multiple uses by multiple users. The human settlement project on celestial bodies, such as the Moon Village, will give rise to complex activities. To regulate these activities, it is necessary to extend earthly countries' jurisdiction into outer space. This article examines existing rules on extraterritorial jurisdiction and identified possible problems thereof. This article offers solutions by making reference to the jurisprudences from human rights law. For the jurisdictional quasi-territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, this article offers new criteria in establishing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
086888
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The movement of people across national borders-along with the cross-border flow of ideas, goods, services, and pollutants-has reached unprecedented levels in recent decades.As a result, sovereign states find themselves under increasing pressure to manage these flows create, while balancing the interests of various constituencies, both national and international.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
170258
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The transfer and deportation of ethnically Rohingya people from Myanmar into Bangladesh is a crime against humanity demanding an international response. What role, however, should the International Criminal Court (ICC) play? On 6 September 2018 an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that the Court has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute such crimes as they are completed on the territory of a State party, Bangladesh. Myanmar is not a party to ICC Statute and has invoked the principle that treaties do not bind third parties without their consent. The case put in this commentary is that while the Pre-Trial Chamber’s approach to the law was arguable as an interpretation of the ICC Statute, it was unwise as a matter of policy. The argument is threefold. First, the Pre-Trial Chamber’s ruling is as a matter of legal method only the first-move in a process of norm-creation and persuasion. Second, it does not follow that because territorial jurisdiction in international law includes ‘objective’ jurisdiction over transboundary acts completed on a State’s territory that such jurisdiction was delegated by member States to the ICC in all cases. Finally, it is argued that international criminal tribunals do not succeed when the cooperation of necessary territorial governments (here, Myanmar) is withheld. Proceeding in this case risks becoming a quagmire of the ICC’s own creation at a time when it can little afford further risks to its legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
177572
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The International Criminal Court has been recently called upon by the Court’s Prosecutor to decide a highly unusual application, to approve its jurisdiction over the State of Israel which has not acceded to its Statute. The Prosecutor asks the Court to apply to Israel a special legal standard, openly discriminating it in comparison with other states. The Prosecutor’s submission consciously deviates from established theories on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favour of unfounded contentions which were discussed and rejected by mainstream scholarship, supporting her tautological arguments with references to vague, unauthoritative sources. This article demonstrates that the accumulative weight of all these factors points to the conclusion that the Prosecutor’s submission constitutes in fact a sophisticated action in the service of Palestinian Lawfare against Israel rather than a bona fide legal motion. The consequences of this project, should it be endorsed by the Court, might prove devastative to international law and the present world order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
178352
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is heralded as a constitution for the oceans and, as part of this, provides for a compulsory dispute settlement procedure entailing binding decisions. However, case law and academic commentary have highlighted significant issues in definitively identifying other agreements that could preclude these compulsory procedures—a concept permitted by the Convention in certain circumstances. This article begins to explore this challenge by contending that the type of agreement plays a significant role in whether or not it could be determined to be an “exclusionary agreement.” In doing so, the article conducts a systematic interpretation of Articles 281 and 282 UNCLOS, underpinned by the application of relevant provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This provides a conclusive basis as to whether the status of an agreement as an “ad hoc agreement” (specific; adopted for the dispute) or an “existing agreement” (general; adopted prior to the dispute) holds any significance in the context of these articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
116134
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article discusses the evolving framework of a new branch of international public law - international Internet law (IIL), the public international law framework for Internet governance. The article presents the genesis of IIL, its principles and perspectives; tackles key challenges to this new interdisciplinary area of research, such as cyber-security, jurisdiction and privacy protection; and draws analogies between IIL and such traditional areas of international public law as environmental law, human rights law and law of the sea. The article presents current proposals of applying international environmental law due diligence standard to state responsibility for cyber-attacks and giving critical Internet resources the Common Heritage of Mankind status. The role of soft law in creating IIL is emphasized and successful examples of its exercise are presented. The article then goes on to elaborate on hard-law proposals for IIL (Internet Framework Convention including a unique multistakeholder model of participation and responsibility) and presents them as the further evolutionary path for IIL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
109204
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper gives an overview of the activities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2010. It provides information on organizational matters, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and cases before it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
100997
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To assess the degree of judicial autonomy under an autonomous framework, there are five criteria concerning the courts of the autonomous entity: (1) judicial independence; (2) jurisdiction on purely local matters; (3) the power of final adjudication; (4) the power of final interpretation of its own constitution; and (5) a fair mechanism to resolve disputes arising from conflicts between the exercise of powers by the autonomous entity and the sovereign state. The judicial autonomy of Hong Kong after China resumed to exercise sovereignty over Hong Kong is examined according to these criteria. The substantial differences between Hong Kong's economic, legal, constitutional, and political systems and China's may explain the subtle conflicts that the Hong Kong judiciary has encountered in the last 13 years. The Hong Kong Judiciary has learned that it can only exercise its judicial autonomy in accordance with its sense of constitutional justice inherited mainly from the common law if it can tactfully handle the inherent differences between "one country" and "two systems." However, whether that means a weakened version of judicial autonomy or a strategic way to achieve the highest attainable degree of judicial autonomy within constraints is a matter on which commentators have different opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
110910
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Upon its accession, China established a judicial review mechanism for trade remedy determinations pursuant to WTO rules. However, the operational details of the mechanism remain unclear. This paper fills the research gap by discussing the main issues in the judicial review process, including types of determinations that are reviewable, which parties may participate in such cases, which court has the jurisdiction, standards applicable in reviews of law and facts, burden of proof, evidentiary rules, direct application of WTO agreements, appeal mechanism and remedies available. The paper concludes that while China has built a judicial review mechanism that satisfies the minimum requirements of the WTO, its utility is greatly restricted by problems within the judicial system in general. Unless broad changes are made, judicial review will remain an untested theoretical possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
110528
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Optimal jurisdiction size is a cornerstone of government design. A strong tradition in political thought argues that democracy thrives in smaller jurisdictions, but existing studies of the effects of jurisdiction size, mostly cross-sectional in nature, yield ambiguous results due to sorting effects and problems of endogeneity. We focus on internal political efficacy, a psychological condition that many see as necessary for high-quality participatory democracy. We identify a quasiexperiment, a large-scale municipal reform in Denmark, which allows us to estimate a causal effect of jurisdiction size on internal political efficacy. The reform, affecting some municipalities, but not all, was implemented by the central government, and resulted in exogenous, and substantial, changes in municipal population size. Based on survey data collected before and after the reform, we find, using various difference-in-difference and matching estimators, that jurisdiction size has a causal and sizeable detrimental effect on citizens' internal political efficacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|