Pub Date : 2017-06-19DOI: 10.1163/15718107-08602004
B. Pirker, Jennifer Smolka
Building on earlier research, the present article integrates linguistics and pragmatics into the study of interpretation of treaties in international law. This approach aims to make the reasoning of interpreting agents and their appeals to interpretive canons more explicit and transparent. This is consequently demonstrated with a number of practical examples in which the process of legal interpretation and its accommodation of the mentioned norms of interpretation can be adequately described and modelled. At the same time, it is shown that legal language possesses certain particularities, but nevertheless ultimately follows the basic pragmatic rules of communication. Nonetheless, linguistics and pragmatics can only provide an ultimately descriptive account of interpretation, so that evaluative judgements on the normative questions of how to respect the norms of international law still need to be made and – from a normative perspective – the rules of international law are not replaced or abrogated.
{"title":"Making Interpretation More Explicit: International Law and Pragmatics","authors":"B. Pirker, Jennifer Smolka","doi":"10.1163/15718107-08602004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08602004","url":null,"abstract":"Building on earlier research, the present article integrates linguistics and pragmatics into the study of interpretation of treaties in international law. This approach aims to make the reasoning of interpreting agents and their appeals to interpretive canons more explicit and transparent. This is consequently demonstrated with a number of practical examples in which the process of legal interpretation and its accommodation of the mentioned norms of interpretation can be adequately described and modelled. At the same time, it is shown that legal language possesses certain particularities, but nevertheless ultimately follows the basic pragmatic rules of communication. Nonetheless, linguistics and pragmatics can only provide an ultimately descriptive account of interpretation, so that evaluative judgements on the normative questions of how to respect the norms of international law still need to be made and – from a normative perspective – the rules of international law are not replaced or abrogated.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125794840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-09-08DOI: 10.17159/1727-3781/2016/V19I0A1222
Jean-Claude N. Ashukem
Even though the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is soft law, the need to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to be informed and to be involved in development projects is strongly backed in international legal instruments including inter alia the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries (1998) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal People (2007). These instruments do not only appear to be the most comprehensive and advanced international legal instruments that deal with indigenous peoples' rights in terms of the FPIC, but also signal an addition to the growing body of international human rights law that serves to ensure the realisation and protection of the substantive environmental and other human rights of indigenous people, particularly in the context of land grabbing activities that have the potential to negatively impact on their rights. Such rights include, for example, the rights to be informed and to participate in decision-making processes with respect to development projects, including land grabbing activities. This implies an obligation on states party to such international agreements to ensure that indigenous people are informed about and are actively involved in both the negotiation and the implementation of land grabbing deals. However, because the latter often takes place against the background of non-transparent transactions which are inimical to the rights and interests of indigenous people, one may wonder why the principle of FPIC is not applicable during land grabbing transactions. Focusing on Cameroon, this article examines instances of land grabbing in the country in order to support this hypothesis. This is done by focusing specifically on the application of the principle of FPIC. The arguments in the article are inspired by international law in which the application of the principle in the context of land grabbing serves not only to protect the rights and interests of indigenous people but is also conducive to fostering and reinforcing the land governance regime of host countries involved in such deals. To this end, the article concludes that because the principle embodies aspects of procedural rights such as the rights to information and participation, which are often conspicuously lacking during land grabbing contracts, its application in and during land grabbing might be useful to set the basis for the recognition, promotion, and enforcement of local communities' rights in Cameroon.
{"title":"Included or Excluded: An Analysis of the Application of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent Principle in Land Grabbing Cases in Cameroon","authors":"Jean-Claude N. Ashukem","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2016/V19I0A1222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2016/V19I0A1222","url":null,"abstract":"Even though the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is soft law, the need to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to be informed and to be involved in development projects is strongly backed in international legal instruments including inter alia the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries (1998) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal People (2007). These instruments do not only appear to be the most comprehensive and advanced international legal instruments that deal with indigenous peoples' rights in terms of the FPIC, but also signal an addition to the growing body of international human rights law that serves to ensure the realisation and protection of the substantive environmental and other human rights of indigenous people, particularly in the context of land grabbing activities that have the potential to negatively impact on their rights. Such rights include, for example, the rights to be informed and to participate in decision-making processes with respect to development projects, including land grabbing activities. This implies an obligation on states party to such international agreements to ensure that indigenous people are informed about and are actively involved in both the negotiation and the implementation of land grabbing deals. However, because the latter often takes place against the background of non-transparent transactions which are inimical to the rights and interests of indigenous people, one may wonder why the principle of FPIC is not applicable during land grabbing transactions. Focusing on Cameroon, this article examines instances of land grabbing in the country in order to support this hypothesis. This is done by focusing specifically on the application of the principle of FPIC. The arguments in the article are inspired by international law in which the application of the principle in the context of land grabbing serves not only to protect the rights and interests of indigenous people but is also conducive to fostering and reinforcing the land governance regime of host countries involved in such deals. To this end, the article concludes that because the principle embodies aspects of procedural rights such as the rights to information and participation, which are often conspicuously lacking during land grabbing contracts, its application in and during land grabbing might be useful to set the basis for the recognition, promotion, and enforcement of local communities' rights in Cameroon.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117343893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-08-31DOI: 10.4337/9781783478408.II.33
I. Kornfeld
In submitting disputes over environmental harms to an international court or tribunal, the parties to the conflict seek a workable remedy for the issue(s) that triggered the action. Environmental disputes are a relatively recent class of cases that have been litigated in international courts. Indeed, it has only been over the past two decades that these disputes have found their way onto the dockets of international courts. On the other hand, the adjudication of environmental and natural resources cases, by arbitral tribunals, has long-standing origins. Four of the earliest recorded cases are the arbitrations of the Bering Fur Seals Case (US/UK) (1893), the Chamizal Arbitration (US/Mexico) (1911), The Trail Smelter Case (US/Canada) Arbitration (1941) and the Lac Lanoux Case (Spain/France) (1957) dispute. Each of the foregoing arbitrations yielded a remedy. In contrast, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has to date, at best, provided facile or questionable remedies in the environmental disputes that it has adjudicated.This Article is devoted to the adjudication of environmental issues that have come before both the ICJ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) with a specific focus on international law remedies issued by these two bodies. Initially, it analyses disputes adjudicated by the ICJ, while reviewing their outcome and the remedies the Court issued. It then evaluates three disputes adjudicated by the ITLOS. Finally, it compares the two systems, and suggests that ad hoc arbitration may be the better course for states litigating environmental disputes.
{"title":"Are International Courts the Best Adjudicators of Environmental Disputes?","authors":"I. Kornfeld","doi":"10.4337/9781783478408.II.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783478408.II.33","url":null,"abstract":"In submitting disputes over environmental harms to an international court or tribunal, the parties to the conflict seek a workable remedy for the issue(s) that triggered the action. Environmental disputes are a relatively recent class of cases that have been litigated in international courts. Indeed, it has only been over the past two decades that these disputes have found their way onto the dockets of international courts. On the other hand, the adjudication of environmental and natural resources cases, by arbitral tribunals, has long-standing origins. Four of the earliest recorded cases are the arbitrations of the Bering Fur Seals Case (US/UK) (1893), the Chamizal Arbitration (US/Mexico) (1911), The Trail Smelter Case (US/Canada) Arbitration (1941) and the Lac Lanoux Case (Spain/France) (1957) dispute. Each of the foregoing arbitrations yielded a remedy. In contrast, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has to date, at best, provided facile or questionable remedies in the environmental disputes that it has adjudicated.This Article is devoted to the adjudication of environmental issues that have come before both the ICJ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) with a specific focus on international law remedies issued by these two bodies. Initially, it analyses disputes adjudicated by the ICJ, while reviewing their outcome and the remedies the Court issued. It then evaluates three disputes adjudicated by the ITLOS. Finally, it compares the two systems, and suggests that ad hoc arbitration may be the better course for states litigating environmental disputes.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125659429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-28DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199663392.003.0014
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan
This paper contains the outline, as well as the introductory and concluding chapters of a monograph on the protection of intellectual property (IP) in the wider context of international law (OUP, 2016). Against the background of the debate about norm relations within and between different rule systems in international law, the book construes a holistic view of international IP law as an integral part of the international legal system. The first part sets out the theoretical foundation for such a holistic view by offering several methodological frameworks for the analysis of norm relations in international law. These frameworks allow for different ways to conceptualise the linkages amongst international IP rules and those to other areas of international law. Part two then considers norm relations within the international IP system. It analyses the relationship of the two main IP conventions to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as the relationship between TRIPS and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The third part discusses alternative rule systems for the protection of IP in international law: the intellectual creations element of IP is captured by the concept of creator's rights in international human rights law; while the property aspect of IP is protected by international investment agreements as well as European human rights treaties. Part four focuses on three core intersections between the international IP system and other areas of international law related to environmental, social and economic concerns. The areas examined concern international law on trade, biological diversity and climate change. As in part three, the perspective taken is that of the 'other' area and how it perceives its relations with international IP norms. In part five finally, the focus shifts back to the international IP system and the mechanisms it provides for taking into account the interests protected in other areas of international law.
{"title":"The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law - An Introduction","authors":"Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199663392.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199663392.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contains the outline, as well as the introductory and concluding chapters of a monograph on the protection of intellectual property (IP) in the wider context of international law (OUP, 2016). Against the background of the debate about norm relations within and between different rule systems in international law, the book construes a holistic view of international IP law as an integral part of the international legal system. The first part sets out the theoretical foundation for such a holistic view by offering several methodological frameworks for the analysis of norm relations in international law. These frameworks allow for different ways to conceptualise the linkages amongst international IP rules and those to other areas of international law. Part two then considers norm relations within the international IP system. It analyses the relationship of the two main IP conventions to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as the relationship between TRIPS and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The third part discusses alternative rule systems for the protection of IP in international law: the intellectual creations element of IP is captured by the concept of creator's rights in international human rights law; while the property aspect of IP is protected by international investment agreements as well as European human rights treaties. Part four focuses on three core intersections between the international IP system and other areas of international law related to environmental, social and economic concerns. The areas examined concern international law on trade, biological diversity and climate change. As in part three, the perspective taken is that of the 'other' area and how it perceives its relations with international IP norms. In part five finally, the focus shifts back to the international IP system and the mechanisms it provides for taking into account the interests protected in other areas of international law.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114186997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is a fact that states with a high corruption rate (or a high corruption perception) are at the same time those with a poor human rights record. Beyond this coincidence, the paper seeks to identify a concrete legal relationship between corruption and deficient human rights protection. This is in practical terms relevant, because the extant international norms against corruption have so far yielded only modest success; their implementation could be improved with the help of human rights arguments and instruments.This paper therefore discusses a dual question: Can corrupt behaviour be conceptualised as a human rights violation? Should it be categorised and sanctioned as a human rights violation? My answer is that such a reconceptualization is legally sound, and that its normative and practical benefits outweigh the risk of reinforcing the anti-Western skepticism towards the fight against corruption. This assessment leads to the practice recommendation of a mutual mainstreaming of the international anti-corruption and human rights procedures. I conclude that the re-framing of corruption not only as a human right issue but as a potential human rights violation can contribute to closing the implementation gap of the international anti-corruption instruments.
{"title":"Corruption as a Violation of International Human Rights","authors":"Anne Peters","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2805099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2805099","url":null,"abstract":"It is a fact that states with a high corruption rate (or a high corruption perception) are at the same time those with a poor human rights record. Beyond this coincidence, the paper seeks to identify a concrete legal relationship between corruption and deficient human rights protection. This is in practical terms relevant, because the extant international norms against corruption have so far yielded only modest success; their implementation could be improved with the help of human rights arguments and instruments.This paper therefore discusses a dual question: Can corrupt behaviour be conceptualised as a human rights violation? Should it be categorised and sanctioned as a human rights violation? My answer is that such a reconceptualization is legally sound, and that its normative and practical benefits outweigh the risk of reinforcing the anti-Western skepticism towards the fight against corruption. This assessment leads to the practice recommendation of a mutual mainstreaming of the international anti-corruption and human rights procedures. I conclude that the re-framing of corruption not only as a human right issue but as a potential human rights violation can contribute to closing the implementation gap of the international anti-corruption instruments.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122379393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-04-01DOI: 10.1163/22119000-12340002
Katia Fach Gómez, C. Titi
In recent years, the negotiation and conclusion of international investment agreements (IIAs) in Latin America has gone hand-in-hand with a rethinking of investment standards and the elaboration of new IIA models. This is evident, among others, in Brazil’s cooperation and facilitation investment agreements (CFIAs), the continuing negotiations on the creation of a regional dispute settlement centre under the aegis of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), some recently-released investment policy documents and amendments to national arbitration laws for disputes involving the State. The article highlights such developments emphasising the broad spectrum of local approaches that vary from convergence to divergence in order to interpret Latin American countries’ position in the existing investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system and reveal the role that the sub-continent can play in the future design of ISDS.
{"title":"International Investment Law and ISDS: Mapping Contemporary Latin America","authors":"Katia Fach Gómez, C. Titi","doi":"10.1163/22119000-12340002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340002","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the negotiation and conclusion of international investment agreements (IIAs) in Latin America has gone hand-in-hand with a rethinking of investment standards and the elaboration of new IIA models. This is evident, among others, in Brazil’s cooperation and facilitation investment agreements (CFIAs), the continuing negotiations on the creation of a regional dispute settlement centre under the aegis of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), some recently-released investment policy documents and amendments to national arbitration laws for disputes involving the State. The article highlights such developments emphasising the broad spectrum of local approaches that vary from convergence to divergence in order to interpret Latin American countries’ position in the existing investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system and reveal the role that the sub-continent can play in the future design of ISDS.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114882503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Positioning the WTO treaty in relation to other international legal instruments and tribunals is a complex, multi-faceted challenge on which reasoned opinions diverge. This contribution (i) describes how answering the question is, to some extent, an “interpretation choice”, (ii) summarizes the highlights of WTO jurisprudence to date, and (iv) identifies a number of trends and contradictions, and explains how the question itself, and the factors pushing in one or the other direction, have evolved over time. In its case law to date, the Appellate Body (AB) has solved some questions, and thereby made important interpretation choices. General international law, and its centralizing force, has played a key role. The impact of non-WTO treaties, including free trade agreements, and the de-centralizing pull they exert, remains less clear. The recent AB report on Peru – Agricultural Products provides useful clues and is surprisingly open to other international law. In other respects, it fails to convince and risks imposing an unrealistic straightjacket making it difficult for the WTO to adapt. Over time, the debate has shifted from non-trade to trade concerns and from other rules outside the WTO to instruments not part of WTO covered agreements but still concluded within the WTO. The pull toward other rules (broadly supported by the EU) shifted from a desire to legitimize the fledgling WTO dispute settlement system to an urge to find more recent expressions of membership voice. Regime independence and, later, an exaggerated focus on multilateralism have guided resistance against other rules (a trend generally supported by the US). Overall, the AB has preferred the avenue of treaty interpretation, and a pre-existing legal hook that can be found within the WTO treaty, to refer to other rules. Not always with legal support, the AB also tends to more easily accept other rules concluded inside rather than outside the WTO, and procedural deviations over substantive updating.
{"title":"Interplay between the WTO Treaty and Other International Legal Instruments and Tribunals: Evolution after 20 Years of WTO Jurisprudence","authors":"Joost Pauwelyn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2731144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2731144","url":null,"abstract":"Positioning the WTO treaty in relation to other international legal instruments and tribunals is a complex, multi-faceted challenge on which reasoned opinions diverge. This contribution (i) describes how answering the question is, to some extent, an “interpretation choice”, (ii) summarizes the highlights of WTO jurisprudence to date, and (iv) identifies a number of trends and contradictions, and explains how the question itself, and the factors pushing in one or the other direction, have evolved over time. In its case law to date, the Appellate Body (AB) has solved some questions, and thereby made important interpretation choices. General international law, and its centralizing force, has played a key role. The impact of non-WTO treaties, including free trade agreements, and the de-centralizing pull they exert, remains less clear. The recent AB report on Peru – Agricultural Products provides useful clues and is surprisingly open to other international law. In other respects, it fails to convince and risks imposing an unrealistic straightjacket making it difficult for the WTO to adapt. Over time, the debate has shifted from non-trade to trade concerns and from other rules outside the WTO to instruments not part of WTO covered agreements but still concluded within the WTO. The pull toward other rules (broadly supported by the EU) shifted from a desire to legitimize the fledgling WTO dispute settlement system to an urge to find more recent expressions of membership voice. Regime independence and, later, an exaggerated focus on multilateralism have guided resistance against other rules (a trend generally supported by the US). Overall, the AB has preferred the avenue of treaty interpretation, and a pre-existing legal hook that can be found within the WTO treaty, to refer to other rules. Not always with legal support, the AB also tends to more easily accept other rules concluded inside rather than outside the WTO, and procedural deviations over substantive updating.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128918568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The study focuses on specific issues in the system of international security related to modern-day piracy. The first part examines the adequacy of the classical approach treating piracy as a common crime with an international element, comparing contemporary piracy to other illegal activities committed by non-state actors. The second part deals with the status of the threat to international peace and security potentially applicable to piracy. The essay concludes with a brief case study on the role of the UN Security Council in suppressing piracy off the coast of Somalia under norms of international security law.
{"title":"Piracy as a Threat to International Peace and Security","authors":"A. Varfolomeev","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2594817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2594817","url":null,"abstract":"The study focuses on specific issues in the system of international security related to modern-day piracy. The first part examines the adequacy of the classical approach treating piracy as a common crime with an international element, comparing contemporary piracy to other illegal activities committed by non-state actors. The second part deals with the status of the threat to international peace and security potentially applicable to piracy. The essay concludes with a brief case study on the role of the UN Security Council in suppressing piracy off the coast of Somalia under norms of international security law.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124154512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Ragozina, Dmitriy M. Rogozin, S. Vasin, Marina A. Eliseeva, A. Burdyak, A. Makarentseva
Russian Abstract: Работа «Социальное положение инвалидов в Российской Федерации с учетом положений Конвенции о правах инвалидов» посвящена выявлению наиболее адекватного инструментария исследования социального положения инвалидов. При разработке темы тестировались разнообразные методы исследования, использующиеся в России и в зарубежных странах: статистический анализ (в т.ч.: базы данных Росстата, переписи населения, всероссийские статистические наблюдения), выборочные и глубинные (качественные) социологические исследования. Анализ имеющегося инструментария позволил подготовить предложения для организации системы Национального мониторинга инвалидов в Российской Федерации, который должен осуществляться в свете Конвенции ООН о правах инвалидов.English Abstract: The paper "Social Status of People with Disabilities in the Russian Federation with Accounting of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons" is devoted to identifying the most appropriate instruments for the study of social status of the disabled persons. In developing of the theme of the topics a variety of research methods used in Russia and in foreign countries was tested: a statistical analysis (including Rosstat database, census, national statistical surveys), and samples of in-depth (qualitative) sociological research. Analysis of the available tools allows us to prepare proposals for the organization of a national monitoring system of disabled persons in the Russian Federation, which should be done in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons.
{"title":"Социальное Положение Инвалидов в Российской Федерации С Учетом Положений Конвенции О Правах Инвалидов (Social Status of People with Disabilities in the Russian Federation with Accounting of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons)","authors":"L. Ragozina, Dmitriy M. Rogozin, S. Vasin, Marina A. Eliseeva, A. Burdyak, A. Makarentseva","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2590272","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2590272","url":null,"abstract":"Russian Abstract: Работа «Социальное положение инвалидов в Российской Федерации с учетом положений Конвенции о правах инвалидов» посвящена выявлению наиболее адекватного инструментария исследования социального положения инвалидов. При разработке темы тестировались разнообразные методы исследования, использующиеся в России и в зарубежных странах: статистический анализ (в т.ч.: базы данных Росстата, переписи населения, всероссийские статистические наблюдения), выборочные и глубинные (качественные) социологические исследования. Анализ имеющегося инструментария позволил подготовить предложения для организации системы Национального мониторинга инвалидов в Российской Федерации, который должен осуществляться в свете Конвенции ООН о правах инвалидов.English Abstract: The paper \"Social Status of People with Disabilities in the Russian Federation with Accounting of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons\" is devoted to identifying the most appropriate instruments for the study of social status of the disabled persons. In developing of the theme of the topics a variety of research methods used in Russia and in foreign countries was tested: a statistical analysis (including Rosstat database, census, national statistical surveys), and samples of in-depth (qualitative) sociological research. Analysis of the available tools allows us to prepare proposals for the organization of a national monitoring system of disabled persons in the Russian Federation, which should be done in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons.","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130929360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After Eric Posner and Jack Goldsmith published their controversial book, The Limits of International Law, a number of critical reviews were written, even by rational choice theory law scholars, contradicting what they saw as ‘simplistic’ and ‘inconsistent’ assumptions about the role of international law. However, neither Posner nor Goldsmith seem to be affected by the critique and have continued to explain the book’s main thesis in new publications. For instance, the co-author Posner and Alan Sykes have recently published a book entitled, Economic Foundations of International Law, which apply the rational choice theory to explain the state cooperative behaviour at the International level. They did that by claiming that international law must be self-enforcing by the application of private contract theory of efficient breach. This article will evaluate Posner, Sykes and others claim of the need for efficient breach in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) law. The authors have mainly relied on the WTO acquis to introduce their theory to other subfields of public international law, such as, international human right law. Sometimes they justify their argument based on ‘the absence of welfarist justification of international law’ and most of the time on the weakness of the public international law enforcement mechanism, citing the WTO dispute settlement system as an example. This article will try to answer this question: does the lack of ‘welfarist grounds’ justify an efficient breach of existing WTO rules to serve the states self-interest objectives?
在埃里克·波斯纳(Eric Posner)和杰克·戈德史密斯(Jack Goldsmith)出版了他们备受争议的著作《国际法的极限》(The Limits of International Law)之后，甚至理性选择理论的法律学者也写了许多批评性的评论，反驳了他们所认为的关于国际法作用的“简单化”和“不一致”的假设。然而，波斯纳和戈德史密斯似乎都没有受到批评的影响，并在新的出版物中继续解释这本书的主要论点。例如，合著者波斯纳和艾伦·赛克斯最近出版了一本名为《国际法的经济基础》的书，将理性选择理论应用于国际层面上的国家合作行为。他们通过声称国际法必须通过适用有效违约的私人契约理论而自我执行来做到这一点。本文将在世界贸易组织(WTO)法律的背景下评价波斯纳、赛克斯等人关于有效违约必要性的主张。作者主要依靠WTO判例将其理论引入国际公法的其他子领域，如国际人权法。有时，他们以“国际法缺乏福利主义正当性”为理由来为自己的论点辩护，而大多数时候，他们以国际公共执法机制的薄弱为理由，以WTO争端解决机制为例。本文将试图回答这个问题:缺乏“福利主义依据”是否证明了有效违反现有WTO规则以服务于国家自身利益目标的合理性?
{"title":"Can the WTO Rules Be Efficiently Breached for Welfarist Objectives?","authors":"Abdulmalik M. Altamimi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2430392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2430392","url":null,"abstract":"After Eric Posner and Jack Goldsmith published their controversial book, The Limits of International Law, a number of critical reviews were written, even by rational choice theory law scholars, contradicting what they saw as ‘simplistic’ and ‘inconsistent’ assumptions about the role of international law. However, neither Posner nor Goldsmith seem to be affected by the critique and have continued to explain the book’s main thesis in new publications. For instance, the co-author Posner and Alan Sykes have recently published a book entitled, Economic Foundations of International Law, which apply the rational choice theory to explain the state cooperative behaviour at the International level. They did that by claiming that international law must be self-enforcing by the application of private contract theory of efficient breach. This article will evaluate Posner, Sykes and others claim of the need for efficient breach in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) law. The authors have mainly relied on the WTO acquis to introduce their theory to other subfields of public international law, such as, international human right law. Sometimes they justify their argument based on ‘the absence of welfarist justification of international law’ and most of the time on the weakness of the public international law enforcement mechanism, citing the WTO dispute settlement system as an example. This article will try to answer this question: does the lack of ‘welfarist grounds’ justify an efficient breach of existing WTO rules to serve the states self-interest objectives?","PeriodicalId":131289,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: Laws","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122243998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：