|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134669
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Society of International Law jointly held a colloquium on international law on May 27, 2014, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the debut of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (hereinafter, “the Five Principles”), jointly enunciated and championed by China, India and Myanmar in 1954. H.E. Mr. LIU Zhenmin, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, H.E. Mr. LI Shishi, President of the Chinese Society of International Law, H.E. Mr. Serpa Soares, Under-Secretary-General and Legal Counsel of the United Nations attended the colloquium and delivered keynote speeches. The colloquium was chaired by Mr. XU Hong, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China. The Panel discussions were chaired respectively by H.E. Mr. Serpa Soares and Professor Rahmat Mohamad, Secretary-General of Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134666
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Today, we gather here in Beijing to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. An international law colloquium specially dedicated to the Five Principles is the first of its kind as far as I can remember. In that sense I believe this event is of special and far-reaching significance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134670
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Ever since it was created in 2006, the Human Rights Council has established a significant number of commissions of inquiry. Other than their historic counterparts, the mandates of these commissions have not been fact-oriented but have had a strong legal dimension. In this context, questions arise whether the commissions are primarily acting as fact-finders or rather as de facto law-applying authorities. Are they supposed to function as self-standing institutional arrangements, or should they rather operate at the service of other mechanisms? The overarching and more generic question is: what is the primary function of human rights commissions of inquiry as established by the Human Rights Council and to what extent is the invocation of international law instrumental in fulfilling that function? This paper examines commissions of inquiry through a historical-comparative approach and demonstrates that contemporary human rights commissions of inquiry have fundamentally different purposes. Where the original Hague-inquiries were predominantly transactional in character, the human rights inquiries rather have alerting and authoritative aspirations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
134668
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This Editorial Comment elaborates the author's concept of the international law of co-progressiveness first as a descriptive observation and then as a normative position and attempts to identify some core tenets of this law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
134667
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In light of the focus of our discussion today, which places an emphasis on both the historical contributions of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and the challenges presented by contemporary international relations, I would like to concentrate my own introductory remarks on three main topics. The first is to trace, from the perspective of the United Nations, the impact of the Five Principles on international law and international relations; the second is to speak more broadly about what I see as the role of first-order “principles” in formulating answers to complex international legal questions; and the third is to investigate, if only on the surface level, how the current international environment, with all the challenges and opportunities that it presents, can lead those of us who operate within it to both question and confirm our principles. My goal with these remarks, as I hope you will appreciate, will not necessarily be to provide concrete answers. Rather, I would like to raise a number of issues for our mutual consideration, which might form the basis for more in-depth discussion throughout the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
134672
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The increasing integration with the outside world and rapid expansion of the Chinese economy has brought about sharply growing number of international civil and commercial proceedings in Chinese courts. As the first step and an integral part of international civil litigation, service of process (documents) is concerned with the interests of private parties, the enforceability of a final judgment and the celebrated sovereighty of the country where the service is to take place. A systematic examination of the Chinese approach demonstrates that although a sound standard for the distinction between domestic service and service abroad is adopted, service methods have reasonably evoloved and the parties' interests are well balanced, China can make further improvements as a Contracting State of the Hague Service Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
134673
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is debatable whether the invocation of Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the CLCS Rules by a third State other than the State(s) submitting the Information automatically results in the deferral of the consideration of a Submission by the CLCS. The CLCS appears to regard itself as a simply functioning body that only inspects the invocation of Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I. However, the CLCS is highly capable of helping to resolve disputes or matters relating to delimitation by making Recommendations regarding delineation prior to delimitation in specific cases. Therefore, an automatic deferral of the consideration of a Submission resulting from the invocation of Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the CLCS Rules implies that the CLCS denies its responsibility under the 1982 UNCLOS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
134671
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Most excessive greenhouse gas emissions originate from developed States but the adverse impact of climate change is predominantly affecting developing States. This article submits that the law of State responsibility could provide important guidance for the development of the international regime on climate change. The failure of many States, in particular developed ones, to prevent excessive per capita emissions causing harm to global atmospheric commons constitutes arguably a breach of an obligation arising from the no-harm principle. The barriers to the implementation of the law of State responsibility through litigation do not exclude its applicability and the existence of secondary obligations. The obligation to cease a continuing wrongful act suggests a duty of industrial States to commit much more strongly to reducing their emissions. Overall, the obligation to make full reparation requires something essentially different from the current approach of co-operation with regard to adaptation, which, from a State responsibility perspective, seems to involve unjustified interference in the internal affairs of injured States. While certain discrepancies between the climate regime and the law of State responsibility are perhaps inevitable, developed States' outright rejection of responsibility constitutes a major obstacle to achieving a substantial global consensus on responses to climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|