State judicial elections are governed by a unique set of rules that enforce longstanding norms of judicial independence by limiting how judicial candidates campaign. These rules have been a key part of recent debates over judicial elections and have been the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court cases. Regulating Judicial Elections provides the first accounting of the efficacy and consequences of such rules. C. Scott Peters re-frames debates over judicial elections by shifting away from all-or-nothing claims about threats to judicial independence and focusing instead on the trade-offs inherent in our checks and balances system. In doing so, he is able to examine the costs and benefits of state ethical restrictions. Peters finds that while some parts of state codes of conduct achieve their desired goals, others may backfire and increase the politicization of judicial elections. Moreover, modest gains in the protection of independence come at the expense of the effectiveness of elections as accountability mechanisms. These empirical findings will inform ongoing normative debates about judicial elections.

In order to be effective, international tribunals should be perceived as legitimate adjudicators. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights provides in-depth analyses on whether European consensus is capable of enhancing the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the method and value of European consensus, it examines the practicalities of consensus identification and application and discusses whether State-counting is appropriate in human rights adjudication. With over 30 interviews from judges of the ECtHR and qualitative analyses of the case law, this book gives readers access to firsthand and up-to-date information, and provides an understanding of how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.

International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden offers comprehensive coverage and analysis of the principles, rules, and legal aspects of international commercial arbitration in Sweden. Sweden has long been a leading centre for international arbitrations, particularly for disputes involving parties from the Russian Federation, other Eastern European countries, and China. Written by a renowned author with more than 25 years experience, practising both as counsel and arbitrator, this book utilizes personal and professional experience to provide the non-Swedish reader with an in-depth knowledge of Swedish arbitration laws as they are applied internationally. Special attention is paid to issues relating to the conflict of laws and further aspects of private and public international law, such as issues around the enforcement of foreign awards in Sweden. This new edition features additional appendices providing a detailed overview of the key cases and legislative amendments since the publication of the first edition.

The United States Constitution established only one federal court -- the United States Supreme Court. Beyond this, Article III of the Constitution left it to the discretion of Congress to "ordain and establish" lower federal courts to conduct the judicial business of the federal government. From the very first, Congress established a host of different federal tribunals to adjudicate a variety of legal disputes. The two central types of federal "courts" -- courts established under Article III and those tribunals that are not -- differ in many respects, including with regard to their personnel, purposes, and powers. This book discusses the use of congressional power to create federal courts. It also examines ongoing congressional interest in select characteristics of lower federal court judges.

The European Court of Human Rights, by Angelika Nussberger is the first title in a new series, The Elements of International Law. Providing a fresh, objective, and non-argumentative approach to the discipline of international law, this series is an accessible go-to source for practicing international lawyers, judges and arbitrators, government and military officers, scholars, teachers, and students. In this volume, Professor Nussberger explores the Court's uniqueness as an international adjudicatory body in the light of its history, structure, and procedure, as well as its key doctrines and case law. This book also shows the role played by the Court in the development of modern international law and human rights law. Tracing the history of the Court from its political context in the 1940s to the present day, Nussberger engages with pressing questions about its origins and internal workings. What was the best model for such an international organization? How should it evolve within more and more diverse legal cultures? How does a case move among different decision-making bodies? These questions help frame the six parts of the book, whilst the final section reflects on the past successes and failures of the Court, shedding light on possible future directions.

In a sweeping review of forty truth commissions, Priscilla Hayner delivers a definitive exploration of the global experience in official truth-seeking after widespread atrocities. When Unspeakable Truths was first published in 2001, it quickly became a classic, helping to define the field of truth commissions and the broader arena of transitional justice. This second edition is fully updated and expanded, covering twenty new commissions formed in the last ten years, analyzing new trends, and offering detailed charts that assess the impact of truth commissions and provide comparative information not previously available. Placing the increasing number of truth commissions within the broader expansion in transitional justice, Unspeakable Truths surveys key developments and new thinking in reparations, international justice, healing from trauma, and other areas. The book challenges many widely-held assumptions, based on hundreds of interviews and a sweeping review of the literature. This book will help to define how these issues are addressed in the future.

This book addresses the European Court of Human Rights' fairness standards in criminal appeal, filling a gap in this less researched area of studies. Based on a fair trial immediacy requirement, the Court has found several violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights at the appellate level by at least eighteen States of the Council of Europe in a vast array of cases, particularly in contexts of first instance acquittals overturning and of sentences increasing on appeal. On the one hand, the book critically engages this case-law with the law revisions it has recently inspired in European countries, as well as with the critiques and difficulties that it continues to raise. On the other hand, it interweaves insight from criminal procedure theory with new discoveries in the field of cognitive sciences (neuroscience of memory, philosophy of knowledge, AI), shedding an interdisciplinary light on the (in)adequacy and limits of the Strasbourg Court's jurisprudence.

This book offers a unique insight into the inner workings of international courts and tribunals. Combining the rigour of the essay and the creativity of the novel, Tommaso Soave narrates the invisible practices and interactions that make up the dispute settlement process, from the filing of the initial complaint to the issuance of the final decision. At each step, the book unravels the myriad activities of the legal experts running the international judiciary - judges, arbitrators, agents, counsel, advisors, bureaucrats, and specialized academics - and reveals their pervasive power in the process. The cooperation and competition among these inner circles of professionals lie at the heart of international judicial decisions. By shedding light on these social dynamics, Soave takes the reader on a journey through the lives, ambitions, and preoccupations of the everyday makers of international law.

This book theorizes the ways in which states that are presumed to be weaker in the international system use the International Criminal Court (ICC) to advance their security and political interests. Ultimately, it contends that African states have managed to instrumentally and strategically use the international justice system to their advantage, a theoretical framework that challenges the "justice cascade" argument. The empirical work of this study focuses on four major themes around the intersection of power, states' interests, and the global governance of atrocity crimes: firstly, the strategic use of self-referrals to the ICC; secondly, complementarity between national and the international justice system; thirdly, the limits of state cooperation with international courts; and finally the use of international courts in domestic political conflicts. This book is valuable to students, scholars, and researchers who are interested in international relations, international criminal justice, peace and conflict studies, human rights, and African politics.

The threat of personal harm and destruction from terrorist attacks is nowhere near as great as in Arab nations. However, are counter-terrorism laws in the Arab world formulated and enforced to protect or oppress? Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Law in the Arab World examines the relationship between Western influence and counter-terrorism law, focusing on the Arab world, which is, on the one hand, a hostile producer of terrorist organizations, and on the other, a leader in countering 'terrorism'. With case studies of Egypt and Tunisia, Alzubairi traces the colonial roots of the use of coercion and extra-legal measures to protect the ruling order, which are now justified in both the West and the Arab world in the name of counter-terrorism. Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Law in the Arab World provides important lessons for counter-terrorism, not just in these countries but also elsewhere in the world.

This is the first in-depth study of the first three ICC trials: an engaging, accessible text meant for specialists and students, for legal advocates and a wide range of professionals concerned with diverse cultures, human rights, and restorative justice. Now with an updated postscript for the paperback edition, it offers a balanced view on persistent tensions and controversies. Separate chapters analyze the working realities of central African armed conflicts, finding reasons for their surprising resistance to ICC legal formulas. The book dissects the Court's structural dynamics, which were designed to steer an elusive middle course between high moral ideals and hard political realities. Detailed chapters provide vivid accounts of courtroom encounters with four Congolese suspects. The mixed record of convictions, acquittals, dissents, and appeals, resulting from these trials, provides a map of distinct fault-lines within the ICC legal code, and suggests a rocky path ahead for the Court's next ventures.

Opposite pages bear duplicate numbering

Beyond Fragmentation assembles a unique team of expert practitioners and leading scholars to explore and advance the study of cross-fertilization among international courts and tribunals. Using an inter-disciplinary and multi-method approach, contributors analyse how international courts and tribunals interact and why it matters in practice. After a thorough review of prior assessments of cross-fertilization and fragmentation, the editors offer a new take on competition and cooperation across courts and tribunals, exploring both substantive and procedural elements as well as the diverse agents of cross fertilization. Contributors engage with procedural issues, identifying a "procedural cross-fertilization pull" and why and how procedure is converging in international courts and tribunals. Case studies on the convergence in the law of the sea and at the European Court of Human Rights provide contrasting experiences of substantive cross-fertilization. The volume also identifies a variety of agents of cross-fertilization, including judges, litigants, counsel, and international organizations.

By re-writing US Supreme Court opinions that implicate critical dimensions of racial justice, Critical Race Judgments demonstrates that it's possible to be judge and a critical race theorist. Specific issues covered in these cases include the death penalty, employment, voting, policing, education, the environment, justice, housing, immigration, sexual orientation, segregation, and mass incarceration. While some rewritten cases - Plessy v. Ferguson (which constitutionalized Jim Crow) and Korematsu v. United States (which constitutionalized internment) - originally focused on race, many of the rewritten opinions - Lawrence v. Texas (which constitutionalized sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (which constitutionalized a woman's right to choose) - are used to incorporate racial justice principles in novel and important ways. This work is essential for everyone who needs to understand why critical race theory must be deployed in constitutional law to uphold and advance racial justice principles that are foundational to US democracy.

By re-writing US Supreme Court opinions that implicate critical dimensions of racial justice, Critical Race Judgments demonstrates that it's possible to be judge and a critical race theorist. Specific issues covered in these cases include the death penalty, employment, voting, policing, education, the environment, justice, housing, immigration, sexual orientation, segregation, and mass incarceration. While some rewritten cases - Plessy v. Ferguson (which constitutionalized Jim Crow) and Korematsu v. United States (which constitutionalized internment) - originally focused on race, many of the rewritten opinions - Lawrence v. Texas (which constitutionalized sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (which constitutionalized a woman's right to choose) - are used to incorporate racial justice principles in novel and important ways. This work is essential for everyone who needs to understand why critical race theory must be deployed in constitutional law to uphold and advance racial justice principles that are foundational to US democracy.

This book discusses the future role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a world facing survival challenges. It discusses threats such as climate change, environmental degradation and pandemics, and argues that in the future the ICJ will need to carry out judicial, security and protection functions as it is the only organ of the United Nations (UN) that can discharge such functions in view of its independence and expertise. The author proposes that the ICJ can apply a hitherto unused jurisdictional provision in Article 36 of its statute that allows it to deal with "All Matters Specially Provided for in the UN Charter" and presents three examples of issues that would require the urgent attention of the ICJ: vaccine equity in a global pandemic, climate disaster, and mass movements of people across frontiers due to climate change and environmental degradation. Bertrand Ramcharan (Guyana) is a Barrister-at-Law of Lincoln's Inn with a Doctorate in international law from the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Diploma in International Law of the Hague Academy of International Law. He was LSE International Law Scholar and has been Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists and a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He has also been Director of the Research Centre of the Hague Academy of International Law (The Right to Life), Professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, and Chancellor of the University of Guyana. He is a former Chief speech-writer of the UN Secretary-General, and has performed the functions of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. His doctoral thesis was on the approach of the International Law Commission to the codification and progressive development of international law.

In recent decades, international courts have increasingly started investigating armed conflicts. However, the impact of this remains under-researched. Patrick S. Wegner closes this gap via a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the International Criminal Court in the Darfur and Lord's Resistance Army conflicts. He offers a fresh approach to peace and conflict studies, while avoiding the current quantitative focus of the literature and polarisation between critics and supporters of applying justice in conflicts. This is the first time that the impact of an international criminal court has been analysed in all its facets in two conflicts. The consequences of these investigations are much more complex and difficult to predict than most of the existing literature suggests. Recurrent claims, such as the deterrent effect of trials and the danger of blocking negotiations by the issuing of arrest warrants, are put to the test here with some surprising results.

In order to be effective, international tribunals should be perceived as legitimate adjudicators. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights provides in-depth analyses on whether European consensus is capable of enhancing the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the method and value of European consensus, it examines the practicalities of consensus identification and application and discusses whether State-counting is appropriate in human rights adjudication. With over 30 interviews from judges of the ECtHR and qualitative analyses of the case law, this book gives readers access to firsthand and up-to-date information, and provides an understanding of how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.

While resistance to international courts is not new, what is new, or at least newly conceptualized, is the politics of backlash against these institutions. Saving the International Justice Regime: Beyond Backlash against International Courts is at the forefront of this new conceptualization of backlash politics. It brings together theories, concepts and methods from the fields of international law, international relations, human rights and political science and case studies from around the globe to pose - and answer - three questions related to backlash against international courts: What is backlash and what forms does it take? Why do states and elites engage in backlash against international human rights and criminal courts? What can stakeholders and supporters of international justice do to meet these contemporary challenges?

A vibrant exploration of past and present controversies surrounding control of the world's oceans. In 1609, the Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius rejected the idea that even powerful rulers could own the oceans. "A ship sailing through the sea," he wrote, "leaves behind it no more legal right than it does a track." A philosophical and legal battle ensued, but Grotius's view ultimately prevailed. To this day, "freedom of the seas" remains an important legal principle and a powerful rhetorical tool. Yet in recent decades, freedom of the seas has eroded in multiple ways and for a variety of reasons. During the world wars of the 20th century, combatants imposed unprecedented restrictions on maritime commerce, leaving international rules in tatters. National governments have steadily expanded their reach into the oceans. More recently, environmental concerns have led to new international restrictions on high seas fishing. Today's most dangerous maritime disputes-including China's push for control of the South China Sea-are occurring against the backdrop of major changes in the way the world treats the oceans. As David Bosco shows in The Poseidon Project, the history of humanity's attempt to create rules for the oceans is alive and relevant. Tracing the roots of the law of the sea and the background to current maritime disputes, he shows that building effective ocean rules while preserving maritime freedoms remains a daunting task. Bosco analyzes how fragile international institutions and determined activists are struggling for relevance in a world still dominated by national governments. As maritime tensions develop, The Poseidon Project will serve as an essential guide to the continuing challenge of ocean governance.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent international criminal tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression. This book critically analyses the law and practice of the ICC and its contribution to the development of international criminal law and policy. The book focuses on the key procedural and substantive challenges faced by the ICC since its establishment. The critical analysis of the normative framework aims to elaborate ways in which the Court may resolve difficulties, which prevent it from reaching its declared objectives in particularly complex situations. Contributors to the book include leading experts in international criminal justice, and cover a range of topics including, inter alia, terrorism, modes of liability, ne bis in idem, victims reparations, the evidentiary threshold for the confirmation of charges, and sentencing. The book also considers the relationship between the ICC and States, and explores the impact that the new regime of international criminal justice has had on countries where the most serious crimes have been committed. In drawing together these discussions, the book provides a significant contribution in assessing how the ICC's practice could be refined or improved in future cases. The book will be of great use and interest to international criminal law and public international law.

The eighth edition of Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights is a clear and concise companion to this increasingly important and extensive area of the law. The authors examine each of the Convention rights in turn, explore the pivotal cases in each area and examine the principles that underpin the Court's decisions. The focus on the European Convention itself, rather than its implementation in any one member state, makes this book essential reading for all students looking for a concise yet authoritative overview of the work of the Strasbourg Court.

Since its establishment at the turn of the century, a central preoccupation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been to catalyse the pursuit of criminal accountability at the domestic level. Drawing on ten years of research, this book theorizes the ICC's principle of complementarity as a transnational site and adaptive strategy for realizing an array of ambitious governance goals. Through a grounded, inter-disciplinary approach, it illustrates how complementarity came to be framed as a 'catalyst for compliance' and its unexpected effects on the legal frameworks and institutions of three different ICC 'situation countries' in Africa: Uganda, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Linking complementarity's law and practice to contemporary debates in international law and relations, the book unsettles international law's dominant progressive narrative. It urges a critical rethinking of the ICC's politics and a reorientation towards international criminal justice as a project of global legal pluralism.

International courts and tribunals differ in their institutional composition and functions, but a shared characteristic is their reliance on the contribution of individuals other than the judicial decision-makers themselves. Such 'unseen actors' may take the form of registrars and legal officers, but also non-lawyers such as translators and scientific experts. Unseen actors are vital to the functioning of international adjudication, exerting varying levels of influence on judicial processes and outcomes. The opaqueness of their roles, combined with the significance of judicial decisions for the parties involved as well as a wider range of stakeholders, raises questions about unseen actors' impact on the legitimacy of international dispute settlement. This book aims to answer such legitimacy questions and identify 'best practices' through a multifaceted enquiry into common connections and patterns in the institutional composition and daily practice of international courts and tribunals.

Great Judgments of the European Court of Justice presents a new approach to understanding the landmark decisions of the European Court of Justice in the 1960s and 1970s. By comparing the Court's doctrines to the enforcement and escape mechanisms employed by more common forms of trade treaty, it demonstrates how the individual rights created by the doctrine of direct effect were connected to the practical challenges of trade politics among the European states and, in particular, to the suppression of unilateral safeguard mechanisms and inter-state retaliation. Drawing on the writings and speeches of French Judge and President of the Court, Robert Lecourt, it demonstrates that one of the Court's most influential judges shared this understanding of the logic of direct effect. This book offers a distinctive interpretation of the Court of Justice's early years, as well as of the purpose of the fundamental principles of European law.