El blog "Derecho Global" cambia de dirección: a partir de hoy, publicaremos las actualizaciones en la nueva página www.derechoglobalizado.wordpress.com.
21 ago 2012
14 ago 2012
CIDH anuncia Primer Foro sobre el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos
Washington, D.C. - La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) anuncia la realización del Primer Foro sobre el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, el 22 de agosto de 2012 en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. Este foro es co-organizado por la CIDH con la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y la Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado de Colombia.
El Foro de Bogotá será instalado por el presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos Calderón, y contará con la participación del Presidente de la CIDH, José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez.
Entre los panelistas estarán el Comisionado de la CIDH y ex Presidente de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Rodrigo Escobar Gil, el Vicepresidente de la CorteIDH, Manuel Ventura-Robles, y el ex Presidente de la CorteIDH Pedro Nikken. Participarán también el director de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Gustavo Gallón, el magistrado del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Luis López Guerra, y el director de posgrados de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas de la Universidad Javeriana, Luis Fernando Alvarez Londoño. Los panelistas debatirán el tema “El futuro del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, en dos módulos separados, los cuales serán coordinados por el Director de la Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado, Fernando Carrillo Flórez, y por el magistrado de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia y juez electo de la CorteIDH, Humberto Sierra Porto. El evento será clausurado por la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, María Ángela Holguín, y por la Ministra de Justicia y del Derecho, Ruth Stella Correa.
El Foro de Bogotá será instalado por el presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos Calderón, y contará con la participación del Presidente de la CIDH, José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez.
Entre los panelistas estarán el Comisionado de la CIDH y ex Presidente de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Rodrigo Escobar Gil, el Vicepresidente de la CorteIDH, Manuel Ventura-Robles, y el ex Presidente de la CorteIDH Pedro Nikken. Participarán también el director de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Gustavo Gallón, el magistrado del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Luis López Guerra, y el director de posgrados de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas de la Universidad Javeriana, Luis Fernando Alvarez Londoño. Los panelistas debatirán el tema “El futuro del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, en dos módulos separados, los cuales serán coordinados por el Director de la Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado, Fernando Carrillo Flórez, y por el magistrado de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia y juez electo de la CorteIDH, Humberto Sierra Porto. El evento será clausurado por la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, María Ángela Holguín, y por la Ministra de Justicia y del Derecho, Ruth Stella Correa.
El actual proceso de reforma de la CIDH: nuevas formas para viejos intentos
Autor(a): David Lovatón Palacios
Una vez más la reforma de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (en adelante CIDH), ha sido y sigue siendo objeto de debate en el seno de la Organización de Estados Americanos (en adelante OEA) por parte de los Estados miembros. En el año 2011 ello se concretó en la conformación del “Grupo de Trabajo especial de reflexión sobre el funcionamiento de la Comisión interamericana de derechos humanos para el fortalecimiento del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, creado por el Consejo permanente de la OEA en su sesión ordinaria del 29 de junio del 2011, a partir, por un lado, de una sugerencia formulada por el Ministro de relaciones exteriores de El Salvador y Presidente del Cuadragésimo Primer Periodo Ordinario de Sesiones de la Asamblea General de la OEA llevada a cabo en San Salvador en junio del 2011.
Por otro lado, la otra razón –o la razón de fondo– que gatilló la conformación de este Grupo de Trabajo especial (en adelante GT), fue la presentación en marzo del 2011, por parte de la CIDH, de una propuesta de reforma del artículo 11° de su Reglamento, referido al procedimiento de selección y designación del Secretario Ejecutivo de la CIDH y que, inicialmente, no fue bien recibida por la Secretaría General de la OEA ni por algunos Estados miembros. El 13 de Diciembre del 2011, el GT aprobó un Informe final que puso a consideración del Consejo permanente de la OEA, el cual lo debatió y aprobó en su sesión del 25 de Enero del 2012.
Una vez más la reforma de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (en adelante CIDH), ha sido y sigue siendo objeto de debate en el seno de la Organización de Estados Americanos (en adelante OEA) por parte de los Estados miembros. En el año 2011 ello se concretó en la conformación del “Grupo de Trabajo especial de reflexión sobre el funcionamiento de la Comisión interamericana de derechos humanos para el fortalecimiento del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, creado por el Consejo permanente de la OEA en su sesión ordinaria del 29 de junio del 2011, a partir, por un lado, de una sugerencia formulada por el Ministro de relaciones exteriores de El Salvador y Presidente del Cuadragésimo Primer Periodo Ordinario de Sesiones de la Asamblea General de la OEA llevada a cabo en San Salvador en junio del 2011.
Por otro lado, la otra razón –o la razón de fondo– que gatilló la conformación de este Grupo de Trabajo especial (en adelante GT), fue la presentación en marzo del 2011, por parte de la CIDH, de una propuesta de reforma del artículo 11° de su Reglamento, referido al procedimiento de selección y designación del Secretario Ejecutivo de la CIDH y que, inicialmente, no fue bien recibida por la Secretaría General de la OEA ni por algunos Estados miembros. El 13 de Diciembre del 2011, el GT aprobó un Informe final que puso a consideración del Consejo permanente de la OEA, el cual lo debatió y aprobó en su sesión del 25 de Enero del 2012.
José Ovalle Favela: La influencia de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: En el derecho interno de los estados latinoamericanos
Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, nueva serie, año XLV, núm. 134, mayo agosto de 2012, pp. 595-623.
Resumen: En este trabajo el autor analiza la influencia de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en la evolución reciente del derecho interno de los Estados latinoamericanos. Para este fin se ocupa de la creación y funciones de la Comisión Interamericana y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. De esta última, estudia su integración y su competencia, tanto consultiva como contenciosa, así como las características de su jurisprudencia. También aborda el tema del control de la convencionalidad tanto en sede internacional, que ejerce la Corte Interamericana, cuanto a la que en sede nacional o interna compete a los poderes internos de cada Estado, particularmente a los jueces. Por último, el autor analiza cinco casos específicos.
Fuente: Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual
Resumen: En este trabajo el autor analiza la influencia de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en la evolución reciente del derecho interno de los Estados latinoamericanos. Para este fin se ocupa de la creación y funciones de la Comisión Interamericana y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. De esta última, estudia su integración y su competencia, tanto consultiva como contenciosa, así como las características de su jurisprudencia. También aborda el tema del control de la convencionalidad tanto en sede internacional, que ejerce la Corte Interamericana, cuanto a la que en sede nacional o interna compete a los poderes internos de cada Estado, particularmente a los jueces. Por último, el autor analiza cinco casos específicos.
Fuente: Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual
Gaines, Olsen, & Sørensen: Liberalising Trade in the EU and the WTO: A Legal Comparison
Sanford E. Gaines (Aarhus Universitet), Birgitte Egelund Olsen (Aarhus Universitet), & Karsten Engsig Sørensen (Aarhus Universitet) have published Liberalising Trade in the EU and the WTO: A Legal Comparison (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:
This comparison of EU and WTO approaches to common trade-liberalisation challenges brings together eighteen authors from Europe and America. Together they explore fundamental legal issues, such as the role of general principles of law, the role of the judiciary in the development of law, the effect of the principle of non-discrimination and the elimination of non-discriminatory barriers to trade. The contributions also examine the most recent developments in trade law across a full range of trade issues, including TBT and SPS, services, intellectual property, customs rules, safeguards, anti-dumping and government procurement. Adopting a comparative perspective throughout, this volume sheds light on today's trade law and suggests paths forward for each system through the perennial tensions between open, non-discriminatory trade and strongly held national values and objectives.
Source: International Law Reporter
This comparison of EU and WTO approaches to common trade-liberalisation challenges brings together eighteen authors from Europe and America. Together they explore fundamental legal issues, such as the role of general principles of law, the role of the judiciary in the development of law, the effect of the principle of non-discrimination and the elimination of non-discriminatory barriers to trade. The contributions also examine the most recent developments in trade law across a full range of trade issues, including TBT and SPS, services, intellectual property, customs rules, safeguards, anti-dumping and government procurement. Adopting a comparative perspective throughout, this volume sheds light on today's trade law and suggests paths forward for each system through the perennial tensions between open, non-discriminatory trade and strongly held national values and objectives.
Source: International Law Reporter
Cohen: Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism
Jean L. Cohen (Columbia Univ. - Political Science) has published Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:
Sovereignty and the sovereign state are often seen as anachronisms; Globalization and Sovereignty challenges this view. Jean L. Cohen analyzes the new sovereignty regime emergent since the 1990s evidenced by the discourses and practice of human rights, humanitarian intervention, transformative occupation, and the UN targeted sanctions regime that blacklists alleged terrorists. Presenting a systematic theory of sovereignty and its transformation in international law and politics, Cohen argues for the continued importance of sovereign equality. She offers a theory of a dualistic world order comprised of an international society of states, and a global political community in which human rights and global governance institutions affect the law, policies, and political culture of sovereign states. She advocates the constitutionalization of these institutions, within the framework of constitutional pluralism. This book will appeal to students of international political theory and law, political scientists, sociologists, legal historians, and theorists of constitutionalism.
Source: International Law Reporter
Sovereignty and the sovereign state are often seen as anachronisms; Globalization and Sovereignty challenges this view. Jean L. Cohen analyzes the new sovereignty regime emergent since the 1990s evidenced by the discourses and practice of human rights, humanitarian intervention, transformative occupation, and the UN targeted sanctions regime that blacklists alleged terrorists. Presenting a systematic theory of sovereignty and its transformation in international law and politics, Cohen argues for the continued importance of sovereign equality. She offers a theory of a dualistic world order comprised of an international society of states, and a global political community in which human rights and global governance institutions affect the law, policies, and political culture of sovereign states. She advocates the constitutionalization of these institutions, within the framework of constitutional pluralism. This book will appeal to students of international political theory and law, political scientists, sociologists, legal historians, and theorists of constitutionalism.
Source: International Law Reporter
Evans: The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict
Christine Evans (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) has published The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012).
Here's the abstract:
In this evaluation of the international legal standing of the right to reparation and its practical implementation at the national level, Christine Evans outlines State responsibility and examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission and the convergence of norms in different branches of international law, notably human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. Case studies of countries in which the United Nations has played a significant role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes allow her to analyse to what extent transitional justice measures have promoted State responsibility for reparations, interacted with human rights mechanisms and prompted subsequent elaboration of domestic legislation and reparations policies. In conclusion, she argues for an emerging customary right for individuals to receive reparations for serious violations of human rights and a corresponding responsibility of States.
Source: International Law Reporter
Here's the abstract:
In this evaluation of the international legal standing of the right to reparation and its practical implementation at the national level, Christine Evans outlines State responsibility and examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission and the convergence of norms in different branches of international law, notably human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. Case studies of countries in which the United Nations has played a significant role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes allow her to analyse to what extent transitional justice measures have promoted State responsibility for reparations, interacted with human rights mechanisms and prompted subsequent elaboration of domestic legislation and reparations policies. In conclusion, she argues for an emerging customary right for individuals to receive reparations for serious violations of human rights and a corresponding responsibility of States.
Source: International Law Reporter
Benvenisti & Downs: Prospects for the Increased Independence of International Tribunals
Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) & George W. Downs (New York Univ. - Politics) have posted Prospects for the Increased Independence of International Tribunals (German Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2011). Here's the abstract:
In this essay we draw upon the theoretical and empirical literatures on the evolution of court independence within modern democratic states to identify aspects of their political environments that have fostered judicial independence at the domestic level. We then extend that analysis to examine the role that these or similar factors are likely to play in facilitating the independence and legitimacy of international tribunals at the global level. We focus on two such broad aspects of the global environment not normally associated with the independence of international tribunals: the extent of political division between states that are parties to an international tribunal (interstate competition), and the extent of political division within states between state executives and national courts (inter-branch competition). We suggest further that the conditions that facilitate independence have increased in recent years and are likely to continue to do so.
Source: International Law Reporter
In this essay we draw upon the theoretical and empirical literatures on the evolution of court independence within modern democratic states to identify aspects of their political environments that have fostered judicial independence at the domestic level. We then extend that analysis to examine the role that these or similar factors are likely to play in facilitating the independence and legitimacy of international tribunals at the global level. We focus on two such broad aspects of the global environment not normally associated with the independence of international tribunals: the extent of political division between states that are parties to an international tribunal (interstate competition), and the extent of political division within states between state executives and national courts (inter-branch competition). We suggest further that the conditions that facilitate independence have increased in recent years and are likely to continue to do so.
Source: International Law Reporter
Raustiala: Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order
Kal Raustiala (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Law) has posted Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order (in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations:
The State of the Art, Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Since the cataclysm of World War II, the international order has grown increasingly institutionalized. Hundreds of international organizations and tens of thousands of treaties now exist, many with widespread – and in some cases nearly universal – membership. Compared to earlier eras, the international system today is far more densely populated by rules and institutions.
The State of the Art, Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Since the cataclysm of World War II, the international order has grown increasingly institutionalized. Hundreds of international organizations and tens of thousands of treaties now exist, many with widespread – and in some cases nearly universal – membership. Compared to earlier eras, the international system today is far more densely populated by rules and institutions.
Call for Papers: Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders: An International Rule of Law Perspective
Amsterdam Center for International Law
CALL FOR PAPERS
Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders:
An International Rule of Law Perspective
The Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL) is organising a seminar on 14-15 March 2013 and invites paper proposals from scholars and practitioners of law and related disciplines.
The Seminar Theme
The seminar explores the evolving interfaces between international and national legal orders from the perspective of the international rule of law.
In this seminar, the international rule of law concerns international law regulating states, as well as international institutions and other subjects of international law. The international rule of law could be narrowly defined to encompass procedural requirements, or more broadly to include inter alia human rights, democracy, the separation of powers, and/or accountability.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders:
An International Rule of Law Perspective
The Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL) is organising a seminar on 14-15 March 2013 and invites paper proposals from scholars and practitioners of law and related disciplines.
The Seminar Theme
The seminar explores the evolving interfaces between international and national legal orders from the perspective of the international rule of law.
In this seminar, the international rule of law concerns international law regulating states, as well as international institutions and other subjects of international law. The international rule of law could be narrowly defined to encompass procedural requirements, or more broadly to include inter alia human rights, democracy, the separation of powers, and/or accountability.
31 jul 2012
Concluye sin acuerdo Conferencia para Tratado sobre Comercio de Armas
28 de julio, 2012 - La Conferencia para el Tratado sobre Comercio de Armas concluyó anoche sin un acuerdo tras cuatro semanas de negociaciones en las que participaron más de 170 países con el objetivo de regular esa actividad comercial.
Las conversaciones sobre el Tratado —que precisa adoptarse por consenso— continuarán en los próximos meses y el borrador podría ser presentado antes de fin de año a la Asamblea General de la ONU para someterlo a voto, en cuyo caso tendría que obtener la aprobación de dos tercios de los 193 Estados miembros.
Muchos delegados se mostraron decepcionados por no haber alcanzado un acuerdo pero reconocieron que hubo grandes avances y expresaron confianza en que el Tratado se materializará pronto.
Algunos países, entre ellos Estados Unidos y Rusia solicitaron más tiempo para resolver algunas diferencias en la redacción del documento.
El presidente de la Conferencia, Roberto García Moritán, comentó que las delegaciones sabían que iba a ser muy difícil conseguir un Tratado, pero destacó que si bien al inicio de la negociaciones había diferentes puntos de vista por parte de los países, al final de las conversaciones la gran mayoría estaba de acuerdo.
Fuente: UN News Center
Artículo sobre el mismo tema: A Dreafty Treaty?: The Holes in the Draft Arms Trade Treaty, de Global Policy Journal
Las conversaciones sobre el Tratado —que precisa adoptarse por consenso— continuarán en los próximos meses y el borrador podría ser presentado antes de fin de año a la Asamblea General de la ONU para someterlo a voto, en cuyo caso tendría que obtener la aprobación de dos tercios de los 193 Estados miembros.
Muchos delegados se mostraron decepcionados por no haber alcanzado un acuerdo pero reconocieron que hubo grandes avances y expresaron confianza en que el Tratado se materializará pronto.
Algunos países, entre ellos Estados Unidos y Rusia solicitaron más tiempo para resolver algunas diferencias en la redacción del documento.
El presidente de la Conferencia, Roberto García Moritán, comentó que las delegaciones sabían que iba a ser muy difícil conseguir un Tratado, pero destacó que si bien al inicio de la negociaciones había diferentes puntos de vista por parte de los países, al final de las conversaciones la gran mayoría estaba de acuerdo.
Fuente: UN News Center
Artículo sobre el mismo tema: A Dreafty Treaty?: The Holes in the Draft Arms Trade Treaty, de Global Policy Journal
Kulick: Global Public Interest in International Investment Law
Andreas Kulick has published Global Public Interest in International Investment Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:
The strengths of international investment law – above all, a strong focus on investor interests and an effective adjudication and enforcement system – also entail its weaknesses: it runs the danger of impeding or even sanctioning the host states' legitimate regulatory interests and ignoring other fields of public international law. How does it cope with public interest concerns such as human rights, the environment or the fight against corruption? At the heart of this book lies a fresh approach towards a general theory of such global public interest considerations in the investment realm. Delineating how and why those considerations matter, and why the current system does not accommodate them properly, Andreas Kulick fleshes out general principles and customary international law as defences the host state may raise against alleged investor rights infringements and promotes proportionality as the appropriate balancing mechanism.
Source: International Law Reporter
The strengths of international investment law – above all, a strong focus on investor interests and an effective adjudication and enforcement system – also entail its weaknesses: it runs the danger of impeding or even sanctioning the host states' legitimate regulatory interests and ignoring other fields of public international law. How does it cope with public interest concerns such as human rights, the environment or the fight against corruption? At the heart of this book lies a fresh approach towards a general theory of such global public interest considerations in the investment realm. Delineating how and why those considerations matter, and why the current system does not accommodate them properly, Andreas Kulick fleshes out general principles and customary international law as defences the host state may raise against alleged investor rights infringements and promotes proportionality as the appropriate balancing mechanism.
Source: International Law Reporter
Dinniss: Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War
Heather Harrison Dinniss (Swedish National Defence College) has published Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:
The information revolution has transformed both modern societies and the way in which they conduct warfare. Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War analyses the status of computer network attacks in international law and examines their treatment under the laws of armed conflict. The first part of the book deals with the resort to force by states and discusses the threshold issues of force and armed attack by examining the permitted responses against such attacks. The second part offers a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of international humanitarian law to computer network attacks. By examining the legal framework regulating these attacks, Heather Harrison Dinniss addresses the issues associated with this method of attack in terms of the current law and explores the underlying debates which are shaping the modern laws applicable in armed conflict.
Source: International Law Reporter
The information revolution has transformed both modern societies and the way in which they conduct warfare. Cyber Warfare and the Laws of War analyses the status of computer network attacks in international law and examines their treatment under the laws of armed conflict. The first part of the book deals with the resort to force by states and discusses the threshold issues of force and armed attack by examining the permitted responses against such attacks. The second part offers a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of international humanitarian law to computer network attacks. By examining the legal framework regulating these attacks, Heather Harrison Dinniss addresses the issues associated with this method of attack in terms of the current law and explores the underlying debates which are shaping the modern laws applicable in armed conflict.
Source: International Law Reporter
25 jul 2012
Globalización del Derecho. Aspectos jurídicos y derechos humanos, de William Guillermo Jiménez
En el presente
trabajo se explora la relación entre derecho y globalización, con el propósito
de establecer futuros campos de investigación. Se inicia con una introducción
acerca de los efectos de la globalización sobre el Estado nacional, para pasar luego
a una breve mirada sobre el significado de la globalización. En tercer lugar,
se presentan los principales temas, problemas y focos de interés encontrados
sobre la relación entre derecho y globalización, especialmente el tema de los
derechos humanos. Finalmente, se realizan algunas conclusiones, en las que se
destaca la importancia de abrir nuevos campos de estudio sobre globalización
debido a la necesidad de regulación que requieren los fenómenos globalizados.
Enlace para la publicación: ESAP, Revista Nova et Vetera
El Día de la Justicia Internacional, Más que la Justicia Penal
Durante la primera Conferencia de Revisión del Estatuto de Roma, llevada a cabo en Kampala, Uganda, en Junio de 2011, los Estados partes decidieron unánimemente reconocer la fecha del 17 de julio como el Día de la Justicia Internacional. Esta fecha conmemora la adopción del Estatuto de Roma, tratado por medio del cual se creó la Corte Penal Internacional, y pretende impulsar el compromiso de los Estados en la lucha contra la impunidad de los crímenes internacionales.
La investigación y sanción de los responsables de graves violaciones de los derechos humanos y del derecho internacional humanitario es importante por razones éticas, jurídicas, políticas e institucionales. La sanción penal contribuye asimismo al restablecimiento del derecho a la justicia y de la dignidad de las víctimas.
La investigación y sanción de los responsables de graves violaciones de los derechos humanos y del derecho internacional humanitario es importante por razones éticas, jurídicas, políticas e institucionales. La sanción penal contribuye asimismo al restablecimiento del derecho a la justicia y de la dignidad de las víctimas.
Espósito: Jus Cogens and Jurisdictional Immunities of States at the International Court of Justice: A Conflict Does Exist
Carlos Espósito (University Autónoma of Madrid - Law) has posted Jus Cogens and Jurisdictional Immunities of States at the International Court of Justice: A Conflict Does Exist (Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 21, 2012). Here's the abstract:
In its judgment of 3 February 2012 in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), the International Court of Justice has considered the relationship between jus cogens and the rule of State immunity. The Court has denied the existence of a jus cogens exception to the rule of State jurisdictional immunities based primarily on the distinction between peremptory norms as rules of substance and jurisdictional immunities as rules of procedure. For the Court, a conflict between rules on jurisdictional immunities, 'essentially procedural in nature,' and substantive rules of jus cogens is conceptually impossible.
In its judgment of 3 February 2012 in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), the International Court of Justice has considered the relationship between jus cogens and the rule of State immunity. The Court has denied the existence of a jus cogens exception to the rule of State jurisdictional immunities based primarily on the distinction between peremptory norms as rules of substance and jurisdictional immunities as rules of procedure. For the Court, a conflict between rules on jurisdictional immunities, 'essentially procedural in nature,' and substantive rules of jus cogens is conceptually impossible.
Mavroidis: Trade in Goods (Second Edition)
Petros Mavroidis (Columbia Univ. - Law) has published the second edition of Trade in Goods (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:
This new edition of Trade in Goods is an authoritative work on international trade by one of the most influential scholars in the field. It provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of every WTO agreement dealing with trade in goods. The focus of the book is on the reasoning behind the various WTO agreements and their provisions, and the manner in which they have been understood in practice. It introduces both the historic as well as the economic rationale for the emergence of the multilateral trading system, before dealing with WTO practice in all areas involving trade in goods. It contests the claim that the international trade agreements themselves represent 'incomplete contracts', realized through interpretation by the WTO and other judicial bodies. The book comprehensively analyses the WTO's case law, and it argues that a more rigorous theoretical approach is needed to ensure a greater coherence in the interpretation of the core provisions regulating trade in goods.
This new edition of Trade in Goods is an authoritative work on international trade by one of the most influential scholars in the field. It provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of every WTO agreement dealing with trade in goods. The focus of the book is on the reasoning behind the various WTO agreements and their provisions, and the manner in which they have been understood in practice. It introduces both the historic as well as the economic rationale for the emergence of the multilateral trading system, before dealing with WTO practice in all areas involving trade in goods. It contests the claim that the international trade agreements themselves represent 'incomplete contracts', realized through interpretation by the WTO and other judicial bodies. The book comprehensively analyses the WTO's case law, and it argues that a more rigorous theoretical approach is needed to ensure a greater coherence in the interpretation of the core provisions regulating trade in goods.
Alter: The Multiple Roles of International Courts and Tribunals: Enforcement, Dispute Settlement, Constitutional and Administrative Review
Karen J. Alter (Northwestern Univ. - Political Science) has posted The Multiple Roles of International Courts and Tribunals: Enforcement, Dispute Settlement, Constitutional and Administrative Review (in International Law and International Relations: Synthesizing Insights from Interdisciplinary Scholarship, Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
This chapter is part of an upcoming interdisciplinary volume on international law and politics. The chapter defines four judicial roles states have delegated to international courts (ICs) and documents the delegation of dispute settlement, administrative review, enforcement and constitutional review jurisdiction to ICs based on a coding of legal instruments defining the jurisdiction of 25 ICs. I show how the design of ICs varies by judicial role and argue that the delegation of multiple roles to ICs helps explain the shift in IC design to include compulsory jurisdiction and access for nonstate actors to initiate litigation. I am interested in the multiple roles ICs play because they allow us to appreciate the many different contributions ICs make to international politics. ICs do oversee state compliance with international agreements, but this is not all they do. Finally, I explain the relevance of this analysis for two prevalent debates regarding ICs; 1) whether we should conceive of ICs as Agents or Trustees and 2) whether compulsory jurisdiction and private litigant access for ICs inherently features undermine national sovereignty.
Source: International Law Reporter
This chapter is part of an upcoming interdisciplinary volume on international law and politics. The chapter defines four judicial roles states have delegated to international courts (ICs) and documents the delegation of dispute settlement, administrative review, enforcement and constitutional review jurisdiction to ICs based on a coding of legal instruments defining the jurisdiction of 25 ICs. I show how the design of ICs varies by judicial role and argue that the delegation of multiple roles to ICs helps explain the shift in IC design to include compulsory jurisdiction and access for nonstate actors to initiate litigation. I am interested in the multiple roles ICs play because they allow us to appreciate the many different contributions ICs make to international politics. ICs do oversee state compliance with international agreements, but this is not all they do. Finally, I explain the relevance of this analysis for two prevalent debates regarding ICs; 1) whether we should conceive of ICs as Agents or Trustees and 2) whether compulsory jurisdiction and private litigant access for ICs inherently features undermine national sovereignty.
Source: International Law Reporter
17 jul 2012
The Structure of Global Law: Fracture, Fluidity, Permeability, and Polycentricity
Larry Catá Backer
The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law
July 1, 2012
CPE Working Paper No. 2012-7
Abstract:
Global law can be understood as the systematization of anarchy, as the management of a loosely intertwined universe of autonomous governance frameworks operating dynamically across borders and grounded in functional differentiation among governance communities. Global law is a way of pointing to an emerging universe of systems that share characteristics and whose interactions lend them to organization; it is the as the law of non-state governance systems. The structure of global law can be understood as an amalgamation of four fundamental characteristics that together define a new order in form that is, in some respects, the antithesis of the orderliness and unity of the law-state system it will displace (though not erase). The essay considers the structure of global law in this context, understood as an amalgamation of four fundamental characteristics that together define a new order in form that is, in some respects, the antithesis of the orderliness and unity of the law-state system it will displace (though not erase). These four fundamental characteristics — fracture, fluidity, permeability, and polycentricity — comprise the fundamental structure of global law. Fracture, fluidity, permeability and polycentricity are the basic characteristics of global law, the systematization of which marks its field boundaries. These also serve as the structural foundations of its constitutional element, its substantive element, and its process element. From that systematization one can derive a method of theorizing the emerging framework of the unity of disunity in governance, in which law and governance systems multiply within a discernible internal logic, while the objects of regulation remain constant. This essay continues work on the evolution of a "law" beyond that of the domestic legal orders of states and the international law frameworks that serve as an expression of state based collective governance. To that extent, it seeks to liberate theory both from the ideological constraints of the state system and as well from the limitations of earlier work in transnational law. To consider the possibility of global law, of law/governance beyond the state, it is necessary to avoid attaching its framework either to the state or to law (as traditionally and narrowly understood as a product of the state).
Source with link for the publication: Social Science Research Nework
The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law
July 1, 2012
CPE Working Paper No. 2012-7
Abstract:
Global law can be understood as the systematization of anarchy, as the management of a loosely intertwined universe of autonomous governance frameworks operating dynamically across borders and grounded in functional differentiation among governance communities. Global law is a way of pointing to an emerging universe of systems that share characteristics and whose interactions lend them to organization; it is the as the law of non-state governance systems. The structure of global law can be understood as an amalgamation of four fundamental characteristics that together define a new order in form that is, in some respects, the antithesis of the orderliness and unity of the law-state system it will displace (though not erase). The essay considers the structure of global law in this context, understood as an amalgamation of four fundamental characteristics that together define a new order in form that is, in some respects, the antithesis of the orderliness and unity of the law-state system it will displace (though not erase). These four fundamental characteristics — fracture, fluidity, permeability, and polycentricity — comprise the fundamental structure of global law. Fracture, fluidity, permeability and polycentricity are the basic characteristics of global law, the systematization of which marks its field boundaries. These also serve as the structural foundations of its constitutional element, its substantive element, and its process element. From that systematization one can derive a method of theorizing the emerging framework of the unity of disunity in governance, in which law and governance systems multiply within a discernible internal logic, while the objects of regulation remain constant. This essay continues work on the evolution of a "law" beyond that of the domestic legal orders of states and the international law frameworks that serve as an expression of state based collective governance. To that extent, it seeks to liberate theory both from the ideological constraints of the state system and as well from the limitations of earlier work in transnational law. To consider the possibility of global law, of law/governance beyond the state, it is necessary to avoid attaching its framework either to the state or to law (as traditionally and narrowly understood as a product of the state).
Source with link for the publication: Social Science Research Nework
Legg: The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality
Andrew Legg (Essex Court Chambers) has published The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:
The margin of appreciation is a judicial doctrine whereby international courts allow states to have a measure of diversity in their interpretation of human rights treaty obligations. The doctrine is at the heart of some of the most important international human rights decisions. Does it undermine the universality of human rights? How should judges decide whether to give this margin of appreciation to states? How can lawyers make best use of arguments for or against the margin of appreciation?
This book answers these questions, and broadens the discussion on the margin of appreciation by including material beyond the ECHR system. It provides a comprehensive justification of the doctrine, and catalogues the key cases affecting the doctrine in practice.
Source: International Law Reporter
The margin of appreciation is a judicial doctrine whereby international courts allow states to have a measure of diversity in their interpretation of human rights treaty obligations. The doctrine is at the heart of some of the most important international human rights decisions. Does it undermine the universality of human rights? How should judges decide whether to give this margin of appreciation to states? How can lawyers make best use of arguments for or against the margin of appreciation?
This book answers these questions, and broadens the discussion on the margin of appreciation by including material beyond the ECHR system. It provides a comprehensive justification of the doctrine, and catalogues the key cases affecting the doctrine in practice.
Source: International Law Reporter
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)