Criminal law, according to George Fletcher, has become localized law in the sense that each country and, within the USA, each state has adopted its own set of criminal codes, conceptions of punishable behaviour, etc. In this book, Fletcher maintains that there is much greater unity among diverse systems of criminal justice than commonly realized, and that any adequate system of criminal law necessarily must address a set of universal, basic issues. He introduced and sets out the twelve concepts that shape and guide every system of criminal justice, knowledge of which is essential to understanding the structure of the law and its local and national variations.

Nations often turn to international courts to help with overcoming collective-action problems associated with international relations. However, these courts generally cannot enforce their rulings, which begs the question: how effective are international courts? This book proposes a general theory of international courts that assumes a court has no direct power over national governments. Member states are free to ignore both the international agreement and the rulings by the court created to enforce that agreement. The theory demonstrates that such a court can, in fact, facilitate cooperation with international law, but only within important political constraints. The authors examine the theoretical argument in the context of the European Union. Using an original data set of rulings by the European Court of Justice, they find that the disposition of court rulings and government compliance with those rulings comport with the theory's predictions.

Transplanting International Courts: The Law and Politics of the Andean Tribunal of Justice provides a deep, systematic investigation of the most active and successful transplant of the European Court of Justice. The Andean Tribunal is effective by any plausible definition of the term, but only in the domain of intellectual property law. Alter and Helfer explain how the Andean Tribunal established its legal authority within and beyond this intellectual property island, and how Andean judges have navigated moments of both transnational political consensus and political contestation over the goals and objectives of regional economic integration. By letting member states set the pace and scope of Andean integration, by condemning unequivocal violations of Andean rules, and by allowing for the coexistence of national legislation and supranational authority, the Tribunal has retained its fidelity to Andean law while building relationships with nationally-based administrative agencies, lawyers, and judges. Yet the Tribunals circumspect and formalist approach means that, unlike in Europe, community law is not an engine of integration. The Tribunals strategy has also limited its influence within the Andean legal system. The authors also revisit their own path-breaking scholarship on the effectiveness of international adjudication. Alter and Helfer argue that the European Court of Justice benefitted in underappreciated ways from the support of transnational jurist advocacy movements that are absent or poorly organized in the Andes and elsewhere in the world. The Andean Tribunals longevity despite these and other challenges offers guidance for international courts in other developing country contexts. Moreover, given that the Andean Community has weathered member state withdrawals and threats of exit, major economic and political crises, and the retrenchment of core policies such as the common external tariff, the Andean experience offers timely and important lessons for European international courts.

Opposite pages bear duplicate numbering

This book argues that national and international courts seek to enhance their reputations through the strategic exercise of judicial power. Courts often cannot enforce their judgments and must rely on reputational sanctions to ensure compliance. One way to do this is for courts to improve their reputation for generating compliance with their judgments. When the court's reputation is increased, parties will be expected to comply with its judgments and the reputational sanction on a party that fails to comply will be higher. This strategy allows national and international courts, which cannot enforce their judgments against states and executives, to improve the likelihood that their judgments will be complied with over time. This book describes the judicial tactics that courts use to shape their judgments in ways that maximize their reputational gains.

What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective? Feminist Judgments brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, the most significant US Supreme Court cases on gender from the 1800s to the present day. The twenty-five opinions in this volume demonstrate that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the course of the law. The rewritten decisions reveal that previously accepted judicial outcomes were not necessary or inevitable and demonstrate that feminist reasoning increases the judicial capacity for justice. Feminist Judgments opens a path for a long overdue discussion of the real impact of judicial diversity on the law as well as the influence of perspective on judging.

The European system of human rights protection faces institutional and political pressures which threaten its very survival. These institional pressures stem from the backlog of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, the large number of its judgments that remain unimplemented, and the political pressures that arise from sustained attacks on the Court's legitimacy and authority, notably from politicians and jurists in the United Kingdom. This book addresses the theme which lies at the heart of these pressures: the role of national parliaments in the implementation of judgments of the Court. It combines theoretical and empirical insights into the role of parliaments in securing domestic compliance with the Court's decisions, and provides detailed investigation of five European states with differing records of human rights compliance and parliamentary mobilisation: Ukraine, Romania, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. How far are parliaments engaged in implementation, and how far should they be? Do parliaments advance or hinder human rights compliance? Is it ever justifiable for parliaments to defy judgments of the Court? And how significant is the role played by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Drawing on the fields of international law, international relations, political science, and political philosophy, the book argues that adverse human rights judgments not only confer obligations on parliamentarians but also create opportunities for them to develop influential interpretations of human rights and enhance their own democratic legitimacy. It makes an authoritative contribution to debate about the future of the European and other supranational human rights mechanisms and the broader relationship between democracy, human rights, and legitimate authority.

Nation states have long and successfully claimed to be the proper and sovereign forum for determining a country's international economic policies. Increasingly, however, supranational and non-governmental actors are moving to the front of the stage. New forms of multilateral and global policy-making have emerged, including states and national administrations, key international organizations, international conferences, multinational enterprises, and a wide range of transnational pressure groups and NGOs that all claim their share in exercising power and influence on international and domestic policy-making. In honour of Professor Mitsuo Matsushita's intellectual contributions to the field of international economic law, this volume reflects on the current state and the future of international economic law. The book addresses a broad spectrum of themes in contemporary international economic regulations and focuses specifically on the significant areas of Professor Matsushita's scholarship, including the rise of the soft-law mechanism in international economic regulation, the role of the WTO and dispute settlement, and specific areas such as competition, subsidies, anti-dumping, intellectual property, and natural resources. Part one of the volume provides a comprehensive and critical analysis of the rule-based international dispute settlement mechanisms; Part two investigates the normative influences to and from WTO law; and Part three focuses on policy and law-making issues.

Opposite pages bear duplicate numbering

Investment treaty arbitration is fast becoming one of the most common methods of dispute settlement in international law. Despite having ancient roots, the private interests in international investment relations remain in conflict with the need for the recognition of the public international law features of the arbitral procedure. This book, which presents an account of investment treaty arbitration as a part of public international law - as opposed to commercial law - provides an important contribution to the literature on this subject. Eric De Brabandere examines the procedural implications of conceiving of investment treaty arbitration in such a way, with regards to issues such as the principles of confidentiality and privacy, and remedies. The author demonstrates how the public international law character of investment treaty arbitration derives from and has impacted upon the dispute settlement procedure.

The persistent objector rule is said to provide states with an 'escape hatch' from the otherwise universal binding force of customary international law. It provides that if a state persistently objects to a newly emerging norm of customary international law during the formation of that norm, then the objecting state is exempt from the norm once it crystallises into law. The conceptual role of the rule may be interepreted as straightforward: to preserve the fundamentalist positivist notion that any norm of international law can only bind a state that has consented to be bound by it. In reality, however, numerous unanswered questions exist about the way that it works in practice. Through focused analysis of state practice, this monograph provides a detailed understanding of how the rule emerged and operates, how it should be conceptualised, and what its implications are for the binding nature of customary international law. It argues that the persistent objector rule ultimately has an important role to play in the mixture of consent and consensus that underpins international law.

International law has historically regulated foreign trade and foreign investment differently. Distinct evolutionary pathways have led to variances in treaty form, institutional culture, and dispute settlement. With their inevitable erosion through the late twentieth to early twenty-first centuries, those weak boundaries have become porous and indefensible. Powerful economic, legal and sociological factors are now pushing the two systems together. In this book, Jurgen Kurtz systematically explores the often complex and little-understood dynamics of this convergence phenomenon. Kurtz addresses the growing connections between international trade and investment law, proposing a theoretically grounded and doctrinally tractable framework to understand the deepening relationship between them. The book also offers reform ideas and possibilities, providing treaty negotiators and other government officials with a set of theoretical insights and doctrinal models that can guide actors in building a justifiable and sustainable level of commonality between the two legal systems.

In fundamental rights adjudication, a court first has to determine whether the interest at stake falls within the scope of the fundamental right invoked. Whether or not an individual interest falls within the scope or ambit of one of the fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights determines whether or not the European Court of Human Rights can decide on the merits of a case. This volume brings together a variety of legal scholars in order to examine the scope of fundamental rights. Topics range from the nature of human rights and the real or imagined risk of rights inflation to theories of positive obligations and social and economic rights. It contains contributions of a theoretical nature as well as analytical overviews of the ECtHR's approach. In addition, comparisons are made with domestic, EU and international law.

The International Criminal Court emerged in the early twenty-first century as an ambitious and permanent institution with a mandate to address mass atrocity crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. Although designed to exercise jurisdiction only in instances where states do not pursue these crimes themselves (and are unwilling or unable to do so), the Court's interventions, particularly in African states, have raised questions about the social value of its work and its political dimensions and effects. Bringing together scholars and practitioners who specialise on the ICC, this collection offers a diverse account of its interventions: from investigations to trials and from the Court's Hague-based centre to the networks of actors who sustain its activities. Exploring connections with transitional justice and international relations, and drawing upon critical insights from the interpretive social sciences, it offers a novel perspective on the ICC's work. This title is also available as Open Access.

This examination of the jurisdiction of international courts and the admissibility of cases before them analyses jurisdictional and admissibility rules in light of the roles assumed by international courts in international life and in light of the roles that jurisdictional and admissibility rules play in promoting the effectiveness and legitimacy of international courts. The theory pursued views jurisdiction as a form of delegation of power (the power to exercise judicial power and decide the law) and regards admissibility as a framework for deciding upon the propriety of exercising such power. On the basis of this theoretical framework, the author critically evaluates the exercise of judicial discretion in the existing case law of a variety of international courts, distinguishing between the category-based case selection implicit in jurisdictional rules and the case-by-case analysis and selection implicit in rules on admissibility.

Opposite pages bear duplicate numbering

This scholarly legal work focuses on the dilemma of prosecuting gender-based crimes under the statutes of the international criminal tribunals with reference to the principle of fair labelling. In this book Hilmi M. Zawati explains how the abstractness and lack of accurate description of gender-based crimes in the statutory laws of the international criminal tribunals and courts infringe the principle of fair labelling, lead to inconsistent verdicts and punishments, and cause inadequate prosecution of these crimes. This inquiry deals with gender-based crimes as a case study, and with fair labelling as a legal principle and a theoretical framework. Critical and timely, this study contributes to existing scholarship in many different ways. It is the first legal analysis to focus on the dilemma of prosecuting and punishing wartime gender-based crimes in the statutory laws of the international criminal tribunals and the ICC in the context of fair labelling. Moreover, it emphasizes that applying fair labelling to wartime gender-based crimes would enable the tribunals and the ICC to deliver fair judgments, eliminate inconsistent prosecution, overcome shortcomings in addressing gender-based crimes within their jurisprudence, while breaking the cycle of impunity for these crimes. Consisting of two parts, this work begins by outlining the central focus and theoretical legal framework of the study. It concentrates on fair labelling as an imperative legal principle and a legal framework, examines its intellectual development, scope and justification, and illustrates its applicability to gender-based crimes. The second part addresses the dilemma of prosecuting gender-based crimes in the international criminal tribunals.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction over European Union law and holds a broad interpretation of these powers. This, however, may come into conflict with the jurisdiction of other international courts and tribunals, especially in the context of so-called mixed agreements. While the CJEU considers these 'integral parts' of EU law, other international courts will also have jurisdiction in such cases. This book explores the conundrum of shared jurisdiction, analysing the international legal framework for the resolution of such conflicts, and provides a critical and comprehensive analysis of the CJEU's far-reaching jurisdiction, suggesting solutions to this dilemma. The book also addresses the special relationship between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights. The unique interaction between these two bodies raises fundamental substantive concerns about overlaps of jurisdiction and interpretation in the courts. Conflicts of interpretation manage largely to be avoided by frequent cross-referencing, which also allows for much cross-fertilization in the development of European human rights law. The link between these two courts is the subject of the final section of the book.

Opposite pages bear duplicate numbering

Revised and updated to include recent developments since 2013, the third edition of The Law of State Immunity provides a detailed guide to the operation of the international rule of State immunity which bars one State's national courts from exercising criminal or civil jurisdiction over claims made against another State. Building on the analysis of its two previous editions, it reviews relevant material at both international and national levels with particular attention to US and UK law; the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and its Property (not yet in force), and also seeks to assess the significance of recent changes in the evolution of the law. Although the restrictive doctrine of immunity is now widely observed by which foreign States may be sued in national courts for their commercial transactions, the immunity rule remains controversial, not only by reason of the recognition of a single State's right to deny a remedy for a wrong - China, a major trading State, continues to adhere to the absolute bar - but also by the exclusion of any reparation or relief for the commission on the orders of a State of grave human rights violations. The complexity and moral challenge of the issues is illustrated by high profile cases such as Pinochet, Amerada Hess, Saudi Arabia v Nelson and more recently NML v Argentina in national courts; Al-Adsani v UK and Jones v UK in the European Court of Human Rights; and Judgments of the International Court of Justice in Arrest Warrant, Djibouti v France and most recently in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, which, particularly since the 2014 contrary ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, has attracted strong juristic criticism. The expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction of national courts with regard to torture in disregard of pleas of act of State and nonjusticiability as in Belhaj and Rahmatullah offers a further challenge to the exclusionary nature and continued observance of State immunity. Recent developments in key areas are examined, including: impleading; public policy and non-justiciability; universal civil jurisdiction for reparation for international crimes; the application of the employment exception to embassies and diplomats; immunity from enforcement and procedural measures; immunity of State officials, and tensions between national constitutional requirements and superior international norms.

Based on the author's Hague Lectures on ICSID, this book on ICSID and the ICSID Convention provides a detailed introduction to the worlds leading institution devoted to international investment dispute settlement. Fully up-to-date as of mid-2019, the book presents a full and accessible picture of an increasingly important dispute settlement mechanism. The author delves into the origins and evolutions of the Convention and Centre and its jurisdiction, then navigates the reader through the process of arbitration proceedings under the Convention, applicable law, and the enforcement of Convention awards. The author also discusses efforts to reform international investment dispute settlement in general and ICSID arbitration in particular. ICSID: An Introduction to the Convention and Centre is an authoritative, essential guide for students, practitioners, policymakers, investors, NGO activists, and journalists with an interest in investor-state dispute settlement.

Tthe treatment of migrants is one of the most challenging issues that human rights, as a political philosophy, faces today. It has increasingly become a contentious issue for many governments and international organizations around the world. The controversies surrounding immigration can lead to practices at odds with the ethical message embodied in the concept of human rights, and the notion of 'migrants' as a group which should be treated in a distinct manner. This book examines the way in which two institutions tasked with ensuring the protection of human rights, the European Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, treat claims lodged by migrants. It combines legal, sociological, and historical analysis to show that the two courts were the product of different backgrounds, which led to differing attitudes towards migrants in their founding texts, and that these differences were reinforced in their developing case law. The book assesses the case law of both courts in detail to argue that they approach migrant cases from fundamentally different perspectives. It asserts that the European Court of Human Rights treats migrants first as aliens, and then, but only as a second step in its reasoning, as human beings. By contrast, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights approaches migrants first as human beings, and secondly as foreigners (if they are). Dembour argues therefore that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights takes a fundamentally more human rights-driven approach to this issue. The book shows how these trends formed at the courts, and assesses whether their approaches have changed over time. It also assesses in detail the issue of the detention of irregular migrants. Ultimately it analyses whether the divergence in the case law of the two courts is likely to continue, or whether they could potentially adopt a more unified practice.

How effective is the European Court of Human Rights in dispensing justice? With over 17,000 judgments handed down, it is undoubtedly the most prolific international court but is it the most efficient when compensating the victims of a violation? This crucial but often overlooked question is the focus of this important new monograph which gives a clear, comprehensive and convincing demonstration of the negative impact, in terms of unpredictability and legal uncertainty, of the discretion used by the Court when it comes to the regime of reparation. It reveals the adverse influence of such a high discretion on the quality of its rulings - ultimately on the coherence of the system and on the Court's authority, and makes suggestions for improvement.

Opportunities to see expert cross-examinations are often infrequent in international arbitration and the occasions to sharpen these skills for many are rare. This book is both an invaluable teaching tool as well as a general guide to effective cross-examination in international arbitration. Based on extensive experience and insight from the authors and aided by practical examples, it provides a thoroughly illustrated analysis of how essential cross-examination techniques can best be adapted to the arbitral format. Concise and well organised, it leads the reader through the different cross-examination techniques in an accessible point by point structure, presenting readers with a clear and authoritative introduction on how best to conduct a cross-examination or a quick-reference for more experienced practitioners. An international arbitration hearing is very different from a trial in a court and any practitioner appearing as counsel, whether common or civil law lawyers, needs to know what will happen and how it will differ in order to adapt their conduct. Hober and Sussman explore the challenges practitioners face when conducting a cross-examination in such an environment and provide practical learning aids to help overcome them. Cross Examination In International Arbitration addresses the common issues that can occur in cross-examination in arbitrations such as adjusting the level of English to consider the competency of the panel's least competent member or how to cross-examine a witness with only the use of a written statement rather than by means of oral direct testimony. By highlighting the common challenges which might arise, the authors present a guide which will benefit those practicing or looking to practice in this field.

There are many variables of territoriality available to national courts under contemporary international law. Does the same apply to the International Criminal Court? And if so, what are the limits to the teleological expansion of the Court's territorial jurisdiction as regards, for example, partial commission of a crime in State not Party territory, crimes committed over the internet or crimes committed in occupied territories? Michael Vagias's analysis of the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court examines issues such as the application of localisation theories of territoriality and the means of interpretation for article 12(2)(a); the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and human rights law for the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions; competence de la competence; crimes committed over the internet; and the procedure for jurisdictional objections.