Relations between societal values and legal doctrine are inevitably complex given the time lag between law and social reality, and the sociological space between legal communities involved in the development and application of the law and non-legal communities affected by it. It falls on open-ended concepts, such as proportionality, human rights, dignity, freedom, and truth, and on legal frameworks for balancing competing rights and interests, such as self-defense, command or corporate responsibility, and restrictions on freedom of expression, to negotiate chronic tensions between law and society and to bridge existing gaps. The present volume contains chapters by leading experts - former judges on constitutional courts and international courts, and some of the world's leading criminal law, public law, and international law scholars - offering their points of view and professional analysis of legal notions and doctrines that serve as hubs for the interpretation, application, and contestation of core values, which in turn constitute building blocks of the rule of law. The shared perspective on the interplay between values and legal rules in public law, criminal law, and international law is likely to render the publication a valuable resource for both theoreticians and practitioners, law students, and seasoned legal experts working in diverse legal fields.

Relations between societal values and legal doctrine are inevitably complex given the time lag between law and social reality, and the sociological space between legal communities involved in the development and application of the law and non-legal communities affected by it. It falls on open-ended concepts, such as proportionality, human rights, dignity, freedom, and truth, and on legal frameworks for balancing competing rights and interests, such as self-defense, command or corporate responsibility, and restrictions on freedom of expression, to negotiate chronic tensions between law and society and to bridge existing gaps. The present volume contains chapters by leading experts - former judges on constitutional courts and international courts, and some of the world's leading criminal law, public law, and international law scholars - offering their points of view and professional analysis of legal notions and doctrines that serve as hubs for the interpretation, application, and contestation of core values, which in turn constitute building blocks of the rule of law. The shared perspective on the interplay between values and legal rules in public law, criminal law, and international law is likely to render the publication a valuable resource for both theoreticians and practitioners, law students, and seasoned legal experts working in diverse legal fields.

Recent decades have witnessed an impressive process of normative development in international law. Numerous new treaties have been concluded, at global and regional levels, establishing far-reaching international legal and regulatory regimes in important areas such as human rights, international trade, environmental protection, criminal law, intellectual property, and more. New political and judicial institutions have been established to develop, apply and adjudicate these rules. This trend has been accompanied by the growing consolidation of treaty norms into international custom, and increased references to international law in domestic settings. As a result of these developments, international relations have now reached an unprecedented level of normative density and intensity, but they have also given rise to the phenomenon of 'fragmentation'. The debate over the fragmentation of international law has largely focused on conflicts: conflicts of norms and conflicts of authority. However, the same developments that have given rise to greater conflict and contradiction in international law, have also produced a growing amount of normative equivalence between rules in different fields of international law. New treaty rules often echo existing international customary norms. Regional arrangements reinforce undertakings that already exist at the global level; and common concerns and solutions appear in many international legal fields. This book focuses on such instances of normative parallelism, developing the concept of 'multisourced equivalent norms' in international law, with contributions by leading international law experts exploring the legal and political implications of the concept in a variety of contexts that span the full spectrum of international legal norms and institutions. By concentrating on situations governed by a multitude of similar norms, the book emphasizes the importance of legal contexts and institutional settings to international law-interpretation and application.

International law is fragmented and complex, and at the same time increasingly capable of shaping reality in areas as diverse as human rights, trade and investment, and environmental law. The increased influences of international law and its growing institutionalization and judicialization invites reconsideration of the question how should the authority to make and interpret international law be allocated among states, international organizations and tribunals, or in other words, "who should decide what" in a system that formally lacks a central authority? This is not only a juridical question, but one that lies at the very heart of the political legitimacy of international law as a system of governance, defining the relationship between those who create the law and those who are governed by it in a globalizing world. In this book, leading international legal scholars address a broad range of theoretical and practical aspects of the question of allocation of authority in international law and debate the feasibility of three alternative paradigms for international organization: Sovereignty, Supremacy and Subsidiarity. The various contributions transcend technical solutions to what is in essence a problem of international constitutional dimensions. They deal, inter alia, with the structure of the international legal system and the tenacity of sovereignty as one of its foundations, assess the role of supremacy in inter-judicial relations, and draw lessons from the experience of the European Union in applying the principle of subsidiarity. This volume will be of great interest to scholars and practitioners of international law alike.

This collection of essays is written by some of the world's leading experts in international human rights law, and corresponds to the main junctures in the professional life of Professor David Kretzmer, a leading human right academic and practitioner. The different essays focus on contemporary human rights protection challenges. They address conceptual problems such as differences between limits and restrictions, and application of human rights standards to businesses and international organisations; legal doctrinal responses to changing realities in the field of surveillance and identity politics; the weakness of monitoring institutions engaged in standard setting; and the practical difficulties in applying international human rights law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a manner sensitive to gender dimensions and the particular political dynamics of the situation. Collectively, the essays offer a rich picture of the current potential shortcomings of international human rights law in addressing complex problems of law, politics and ethics.

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.

Are international courts effective tools for international governance? Do they fulfill the expectations that led to their creation and empowerment? Why do some courts appear to be more effective than others, and do so such appearances reflect reality? Could their results have been produced by other mechanisms? This book evaluates the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals by comparing their stated goals to the actual outcomes they achieve. Using a theoretical model borrowed from social science, the book assesses their effectiveness by analysing key empirical data. Its first part is dedicated to theory and methodology, laying out the effectiveness model, explaining its different components, its promise and limits, and discussing the measurement challenges it faces. The second part analyses the role that indicators such as jurisdiction, judicial independence, legitimacy, and compliance play in achieving effectiveness. Part three applies the effectiveness model to the International Court of Justice, the WTO dispute settlement mechanisms (panels and Appellate Body), the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, reflecting the diversity of the field of international adjudication. Given the recent proliferation of international courts and tribunals, this book makes an important contribution towards understanding and measuring the value that these institutions provide.

This book seeks to investigate the growing jurisdictional interaction between national and international courts ie: their parallel involvement in the same or related disputes in the light of competing theoretical, ideological and methodological discourses on the nature of the relationship and the means to regulate it. In particular, it aims to explore what, if any, rules of international law could, or perhaps should govern such interactions, and regulate forum selection or multiple proceedings involving national and international courts. In addition, the book explores the standards of review employed by international courts vis-a-vis the decisions of their domestic counterparts and vice versa. It posits that the regulation of such interactions ultimately depends on the selection of the overarching paradigm that governs the relations between national and international courts (hierarchical as opposed to non-hierarchical and disintegrative or integrative conceptual frameworks). Following academic discussion of the problems and solutions pertaining to the interaction between national and international courts, the book considers the potential applicability of several jurisdiction-regulating measures to jurisdictional interactions between national and international courts. These include rules on forum selection and rules designed to regulate multiple proceedings (e.g. lis alibi pendens and res judicata), utilization of comity- based measures and doctrines, such as discretionary stay or dismissal of proceedings and margin of appreciation judicial review, and examination of the prohibition against abuse of rights. This segment of the book strives to provide lawyers and academics with a 'tool kit' of measures which could be employed in cases involving jurisdictional interactions between national and international courts.

Recent years have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of international courts and tribunals (WTO, NAFTA, ITLOS, ICC, etc.) and greater willingness on the part of states and other international actors to subject themselves to the compulsory jurisdiction of international adjudicative mechanisms. However, because of the uncoordinated nature of these developments, overlaps between the jurisdictional ambits of the different judicial bodies might occur, i.e., the same dispute could fall under the jurisdiction of more than one forum. This raises both theoretical and practical issues of coordination between the various jurisdictions. The purpose of this book is to explore the implications of jurisdictional competition and to identify standards that may alleviate problems associated with the phenomenon, which arguably threatens the unity of international law. The first part of the book examines the jurisdictional ambits of the principal international courts and tribunals and delineates areas of overlap between their respective jurisdictions. There follows a discussion of some of the potential systematic and practical problems that arise out of jurisdictional competition (such as forum shopping and multiple proceedings) and a consideration of the expediency of mitigating them. The book concludes by identifying existing rules of international law, which govern inter-jurisdictional competition, and by considering the desirability of introducing additional norms and arrangements.

The proliferation of new international courts and tribunals in recent years has given rise to concerns of jurisdictional overlaps between the new and existing judicial bodies. The book examines what would happen when the same dispute falls under the jurisdiction of more than one forum. This raises both theoretical and practical issues of coordinating between the various jurisdictions and identifies rules of law which ought to apply in such circumstances.