{"title":"Foreword to the 60th Anniversary Volume","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.58","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.58","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123082463","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}
Under 28 U.S.C. §1782(a), the U.S. Congress permits federal district courts to order testimony or the production of documents “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” For the past two decades, U.S. Courts of Appeals have been split over whether 28 U.S.C. §1782 applies to private international commercial arbitrations. On June 13, 2022, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it does not. To the extent that §1782(a) may apply to investor-state arbitrations, the Court held that the scope of the statute is limited to adjudicative bodies imbued with governmental or intergovernmental authority. Access to U.S. discovery procedures has thereby been narrowed significantly in the context of international arbitration.
{"title":"ZF Automotive U.S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)","authors":"K. Duggal, D. Lake","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.45","url":null,"abstract":"Under 28 U.S.C. §1782(a), the U.S. Congress permits federal district courts to order testimony or the production of documents “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” For the past two decades, U.S. Courts of Appeals have been split over whether 28 U.S.C. §1782 applies to private international commercial arbitrations. On June 13, 2022, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court of the United States held that it does not. To the extent that §1782(a) may apply to investor-state arbitrations, the Court held that the scope of the statute is limited to adjudicative bodies imbued with governmental or intergovernmental authority. Access to U.S. discovery procedures has thereby been narrowed significantly in the context of international arbitration.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"79 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126017040","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 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in Kigali, Rwanda on April 13, 2022 by the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for the Home Department, Priti Patel, and the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Vincent Biruta. It is part of the UK Government's strategy to deal with asylum seekers, particularly those deemed to arrive “irregularly,” under which Rwanda will take responsibility for those deported in return for payments from the United Kingdom, including an upfront payment of £120 million. The United Kingdom will also pay the processing and integration costs for each relocated person.
{"title":"Memorandum of understanding between the government of the United Kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Rwanda","authors":"G. Goodwin-Gill","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.36","url":null,"abstract":"The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in Kigali, Rwanda on April 13, 2022 by the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for the Home Department, Priti Patel, and the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Vincent Biruta. It is part of the UK Government's strategy to deal with asylum seekers, particularly those deemed to arrive “irregularly,” under which Rwanda will take responsibility for those deported in return for payments from the United Kingdom, including an upfront payment of £120 million. The United Kingdom will also pay the processing and integration costs for each relocated person.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122181754","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}
On April 8, 2021, the Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights delivered an eagerly awaited judgment in the case of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic. It addressed the question of mandatory vaccination in the light of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
{"title":"Vavřička v. Czech (Eur. Ct. H.R.)","authors":"B. Toebes","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.25","url":null,"abstract":"On April 8, 2021, the Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights delivered an eagerly awaited judgment in the case of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic. It addressed the question of mandatory vaccination in the light of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126947344","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 European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was originally conceived as a means of fully harmonizing data protection law across the territory of the European Union. As a regulation, the GDPR has direct and uniform effect in member state law without the need for member states to adopt national implementing laws. However, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) acknowledged in its well-known 2021 Facebook Ireland judgment, the GDPR as finally adopted contains a number of optional provisions that allow member states a margin of discretion to limit or expand its scope.
{"title":"Meta Platforms Ireland v. Bundesverband Der Verbraucherzentralen Und Verbraucherverbaende (VZVB) (C.J.E.U.)","authors":"K. Propp","doi":"10.1017/ilm.2022.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2022.43","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was originally conceived as a means of fully harmonizing data protection law across the territory of the European Union. As a regulation, the GDPR has direct and uniform effect in member state law without the need for member states to adopt national implementing laws. However, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) acknowledged in its well-known 2021 Facebook Ireland judgment, the GDPR as finally adopted contains a number of optional provisions that allow member states a margin of discretion to limit or expand its scope.","PeriodicalId":212220,"journal":{"name":"International Legal Materials","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114378911","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：