Pub Date : 2019-06-03DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-147
Edoardo Stoppioni
Pour le jeune chercheur ayant commencé à étudier le droit à une époque où la Commission du droit international s’interrogeait sur la fragmentation du droit international1 et où cette question polarisait fortement les discours doctrinaux, la méthode comparative apparaît comme un outil incontournable pour comprendre l’évolution de l’ordre juridique international. Confronté à un droit international en transformation, passant d’un bric-à-brac à un système organisé,2 le chercheur est désormais obligé de penser la complexité de cet ensemble archipélagique. C’est d’autant plus vrai lorsqu’il s’intéresse au droit international économique. Si un premier mouvement a eu tendance à voir dans cette discipline une monade sans portes ni fenêtres sur le droit international général, la volonté de repenser sa nature, grâce à l’instrument comparatif, lui a progressivement succédé. La méthode comparative est donc venue permettre un regard nouveau sur le droit international des échanges et des investissements.3 I.
{"title":"L’accès direct de la personne privée à la juridiction internationale : Une comparaison entre l’arbitrage d’investissement et le contentieux de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme","authors":"Edoardo Stoppioni","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-147","url":null,"abstract":"Pour le jeune chercheur ayant commencé à étudier le droit à une époque où la Commission du droit international s’interrogeait sur la fragmentation du droit international1 et où cette question polarisait fortement les discours doctrinaux, la méthode comparative apparaît comme un outil incontournable pour comprendre l’évolution de l’ordre juridique international. Confronté à un droit international en transformation, passant d’un bric-à-brac à un système organisé,2 le chercheur est désormais obligé de penser la complexité de cet ensemble archipélagique. C’est d’autant plus vrai lorsqu’il s’intéresse au droit international économique. Si un premier mouvement a eu tendance à voir dans cette discipline une monade sans portes ni fenêtres sur le droit international général, la volonté de repenser sa nature, grâce à l’instrument comparatif, lui a progressivement succédé. La méthode comparative est donc venue permettre un regard nouveau sur le droit international des échanges et des investissements.3 I.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116444123","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 : 2019-06-03DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-183
P. Menon
The Anglicization of law in the British Empire was primarily based on the perceived primitiveness of the native laws and the superiority of the modern British legal system. Maintaining the South Asian ‘identity’ of the law, while distancing the law from the community it belonged to, the British used procedural mechanisms to tilt the jurisprudence towards the Anglo direction. Procedural justice is often considered as the last bastion of a means to just and equitable practices; this paper hopes to expose the dark sides of the procedural mechanisms that succeeded in helping the British gain control over the Indian polity, through a contrast of the pre-colonial legal systems of India against the British legal interventions. Historical accounts of post-colonial legal systems suffer from, what Dipesh Chakrabarty calls, the “first in Europe, then elsewhere” structure of historical time,1 ignoring in entirety the pre-colonial identity of the subaltern. Such historicist arguments lead to a characterization that Indians were not yet civilized to govern themselves. To overcome these characterizations, the possibilities are twofold: first, to demonstrate how the natives were not in fact uncivilized as the colonial powers claimed, thus delegitimizing the colonial attempts to civilize; second, to demonstrate how the attempts to civilize were in fact a means to subordinate the natives, rendering inconclusive the narrative that portrays a “practical European” nature against a “mythical-religious Orient”.2 The exploration of these two possiI.
{"title":"The Procrustean Bed of Colonial Laws: A Case of the British Empire in India","authors":"P. Menon","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-183","url":null,"abstract":"The Anglicization of law in the British Empire was primarily based on the perceived primitiveness of the native laws and the superiority of the modern British legal system. Maintaining the South Asian ‘identity’ of the law, while distancing the law from the community it belonged to, the British used procedural mechanisms to tilt the jurisprudence towards the Anglo direction. Procedural justice is often considered as the last bastion of a means to just and equitable practices; this paper hopes to expose the dark sides of the procedural mechanisms that succeeded in helping the British gain control over the Indian polity, through a contrast of the pre-colonial legal systems of India against the British legal interventions. Historical accounts of post-colonial legal systems suffer from, what Dipesh Chakrabarty calls, the “first in Europe, then elsewhere” structure of historical time,1 ignoring in entirety the pre-colonial identity of the subaltern. Such historicist arguments lead to a characterization that Indians were not yet civilized to govern themselves. To overcome these characterizations, the possibilities are twofold: first, to demonstrate how the natives were not in fact uncivilized as the colonial powers claimed, thus delegitimizing the colonial attempts to civilize; second, to demonstrate how the attempts to civilize were in fact a means to subordinate the natives, rendering inconclusive the narrative that portrays a “practical European” nature against a “mythical-religious Orient”.2 The exploration of these two possiI.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117139119","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 : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-271
M. Benatar
Few technologies have been as powerful as information and communications technologies (ICTs) in reshaping economies, societies and international relations. Cyberspace touches every aspect of our lives. The benefits are enormous, but these do not come without risk. Making cyberspace stable and secure can be achieved only through international cooperation, and the foundation of this cooperation must be international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.1
{"title":"Cyber Espionage in Inter-State Litigation","authors":"M. Benatar","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-271","url":null,"abstract":"Few technologies have been as powerful as information and communications technologies (ICTs) in reshaping economies, societies and international relations. Cyberspace touches every aspect of our lives. The benefits are enormous, but these do not come without risk. Making cyberspace stable and secure can be achieved only through international cooperation, and the foundation of this cooperation must be international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.1","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117317418","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 : 2017-07-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-479
H. Asmelash
I. Introduction Trade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing measures are the most popular policy instruments employed by countries to protect their domestic industries from “unfair” foreign competition. The Agreements on Antidumping (the “AD Agreement”) and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) permit the use of such remedies as an exception to the general WTO principles of non-discrimination and tariff bindings. However, the use of trade remedies is subject to substantive and procedural restrictions aimed at preventing their potential misuse for protectionist reasons. Trade remedies may only be applied when the competent national authorities determine that there are dumped or subsidized imports causing material injury to the domestic industry. Such determinations can also be challenged domestically through tribunals designated for this purpose and/or multilaterally through the WTO dispute settlement system. Domestic tribunals typically apply domestic trade remedy legislations, but these legislations are substantially similar to the provisions of the relevant WTO Agreements. The major difference between domestic and multilateral judicial review of trade remedy determinations is procedural. The question arises, therefore, whether these procedural differences make the two forums complementary or competing. This chapter sets out to address this question by exploring some of the key procedural differences, namely, standing, standard of review and remedies, between the domestic and multilateral forums for the judicial review of trade remedy determinations. The chapter proceeds as follows. Part II presents some of the key issues in trade remedy determinations. The use of trade remedies is a controversial issue in international trade. While some argue that trade remedies constitute unnecessary barriers to international trade, others contend that trade remedies play an important role in promoting fair international trade and competition. The AD and SCM Agreements represent attempts to reconcile these concerns. While they allow the use of trade remedies, they limit their use by imposing extensive substantive and procedural restrictions. These restrictions will be outlined in this Part to provide the necessary context for the discussion on the judicial review of trade remedy determinations. The term ‘trade remedy determinations’ refers to three types of investigations carried out by domestic authorities to impose import restrictions for the purpose of protecting domestic industries from unfair foreign competition: safeguards, antidumping and countervailing measures. The focus of this chapter is, however, limited to antidumping and countervailing determinations. Antidumping and countervailing measures address different challenges; antidumping duties are aimed at addressing the practice of dumping whereby foreign producers/exporters sell their product in the domestic market at a price
{"title":"Domestic and Multilateral Forums for the Judicial Review of U.S. Trade Remedy Determinations: Complementary or Conflicting?","authors":"H. Asmelash","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-479","url":null,"abstract":"I. Introduction \u0000Trade remedies such as antidumping and countervailing measures are the most popular policy instruments employed by countries to protect their domestic industries from “unfair” foreign competition. The Agreements on Antidumping (the “AD Agreement”) and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) permit the use of such remedies as an exception to the general WTO principles of non-discrimination and tariff bindings. However, the use of trade remedies is subject to substantive and procedural restrictions aimed at preventing their potential misuse for protectionist reasons. Trade remedies may only be applied when the competent national authorities determine that there are dumped or subsidized imports causing material injury to the domestic industry. Such determinations can also be challenged domestically through tribunals designated for this purpose and/or multilaterally through the WTO dispute settlement system. Domestic tribunals typically apply domestic trade remedy legislations, but these legislations are substantially similar to the provisions of the relevant WTO Agreements. The major difference between domestic and multilateral judicial review of trade remedy determinations is procedural. The question arises, therefore, whether these procedural differences make the two forums complementary or competing. This chapter sets out to address this question by exploring some of the key procedural differences, namely, standing, standard of review and remedies, between the domestic and multilateral forums for the judicial review of trade remedy determinations. \u0000The chapter proceeds as follows. Part II presents some of the key issues in trade remedy determinations. The use of trade remedies is a controversial issue in international trade. While some argue that trade remedies constitute unnecessary barriers to international trade, others contend that trade remedies play an important role in promoting fair international trade and competition. The AD and SCM Agreements represent attempts to reconcile these concerns. While they allow the use of trade remedies, they limit their use by imposing extensive substantive and procedural restrictions. These restrictions will be outlined in this Part to provide the necessary context for the discussion on the judicial review of trade remedy determinations. The term ‘trade remedy determinations’ refers to three types of investigations carried out by domestic authorities to impose import restrictions for the purpose of protecting domestic industries from unfair foreign competition: safeguards, antidumping and countervailing measures. The focus of this chapter is, however, limited to antidumping and countervailing determinations. Antidumping and countervailing measures address different challenges; antidumping duties are aimed at addressing the practice of dumping whereby foreign producers/exporters sell their product in the domestic market at a price","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133313675","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-569
A. N. Chaib
As a result of enormous public pressure, international organizations (IOs) concerned with the regulation of world economy have become ever more human rights conscious.1 For example, the institutions composing the World Bank Group have been at the centre of critique for the lack of transparency and participation by affected populations, in many of its decisions to concede loans or credits to either states or private corporations so they can carry out so-called ‘development projects’ . As a response to this, institutions within the World Bank Group have sought to develop accountability mechanisms (AMs) allowing for parties affected by projects under their financing to seek answers from the Bank for their potential violation of certain individual and collective rights. These mechanisms, such as the World Bank Inspection Panel (WBIP or Inspection Panel)2 or the Compliance Advisory/Ombudsman (CAO),3 have increasingly acquired a more ‘judicial’ function. This has happened despite the fact that the rules upon which they base their decisions are not considered law in the traditional sense.4 I.
{"title":"Due Process and Procedural Law in Accountability Mechanisms: The Case of the World Bank","authors":"A. N. Chaib","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-569","url":null,"abstract":"As a result of enormous public pressure, international organizations (IOs) concerned with the regulation of world economy have become ever more human rights conscious.1 For example, the institutions composing the World Bank Group have been at the centre of critique for the lack of transparency and participation by affected populations, in many of its decisions to concede loans or credits to either states or private corporations so they can carry out so-called ‘development projects’ . As a response to this, institutions within the World Bank Group have sought to develop accountability mechanisms (AMs) allowing for parties affected by projects under their financing to seek answers from the Bank for their potential violation of certain individual and collective rights. These mechanisms, such as the World Bank Inspection Panel (WBIP or Inspection Panel)2 or the Compliance Advisory/Ombudsman (CAO),3 have increasingly acquired a more ‘judicial’ function. This has happened despite the fact that the rules upon which they base their decisions are not considered law in the traditional sense.4 I.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131367455","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-447
C. Schreuer
Arbitration, by definition, is always based on an agreement between the disputing parties. In investment arbitration, the agreement is frequently not contained in a direct contract between the disputing parties but results from a general offer by the host State that may be taken up by an eligible investor. In practice, the most frequently used method to give consent to arbitration is through a treaty between the host State and the investor’s State of nationality. Most bilateral investment treaties (BITs) contain clauses offering arbitration to the nationals of one State party to the treaty against the other State party to the treaty. The same method is employed by a number of regional multilateral treaties such as the NAFTA and the Energy Charter Treaty. These offers of consent contained in treaties must be perfected by an acceptance on the part of the investor. Another technique to give consent to arbitration is through a ‘general terms’ provision in the national legislation of the host State offering arbitration to foreign investors. Many capital-importing countries have adopted such provisions. The investor may accept the offer in writing at any time while the legislation is in effect. Unless otherwise provided in the legislation, the acceptance may be made simply by instituting proceedings.1 The possibility that a host State may express its consent to arbitration under the ICSID Convention through a provision in its national legislation or through some other form of unilateral declaration was discussed during the Convention’s preparation. It was uncontested that a unilateral acceptance by Contracting States of ICSID’s jurisdiction constituted an offer that could be accepted by a forI.
{"title":"Consent to Arbitration through Legislation","authors":"C. Schreuer","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-447","url":null,"abstract":"Arbitration, by definition, is always based on an agreement between the disputing parties. In investment arbitration, the agreement is frequently not contained in a direct contract between the disputing parties but results from a general offer by the host State that may be taken up by an eligible investor. In practice, the most frequently used method to give consent to arbitration is through a treaty between the host State and the investor’s State of nationality. Most bilateral investment treaties (BITs) contain clauses offering arbitration to the nationals of one State party to the treaty against the other State party to the treaty. The same method is employed by a number of regional multilateral treaties such as the NAFTA and the Energy Charter Treaty. These offers of consent contained in treaties must be perfected by an acceptance on the part of the investor. Another technique to give consent to arbitration is through a ‘general terms’ provision in the national legislation of the host State offering arbitration to foreign investors. Many capital-importing countries have adopted such provisions. The investor may accept the offer in writing at any time while the legislation is in effect. Unless otherwise provided in the legislation, the acceptance may be made simply by instituting proceedings.1 The possibility that a host State may express its consent to arbitration under the ICSID Convention through a provision in its national legislation or through some other form of unilateral declaration was discussed during the Convention’s preparation. It was uncontested that a unilateral acceptance by Contracting States of ICSID’s jurisdiction constituted an offer that could be accepted by a forI.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124926674","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-331
L. B. D. Chazournes
The proliferation of courts and tribunals at the international level brings diversity to international dispute settlement. This multiplicity gives rise to an increasing number of parallel and competing proceedings. Given the relatively recent vintage of this multiplicity of courts and tribunals, such parallel proceedings have, until recently, been rare. As such, international courts and tribunals have had little need to resort to procedural tools for coordinating jurisdiction and, in contrast to domestic legal systems, there had been a paucity of practice amongst international judicial actors having recourse to such tools. Moreover, no real emphasis had been placed on the importance of the role that appropriate procedural rules play in coordinating international jurisdiction. That is, however, beginning to change and this change has been prompted by the problems caused by uncoordinated dispute settlement. There are a number of undesirable consequences that arise from uncoordinated dispute settlement, including, but not limited to, abusive forum shopping, wasted resources, uncertainty, and conflicting judgments.1 The latter can occur when different tribunals make different decisions on disputes with the same facts. The cases of Lauder2 and CME v. Czech Republic3 are an example of conflicting decisions in the area of investment arbitraI.
{"title":"Parallel and Overlapping Proceedings in International Economic Law: Towards an Ordered Co-existence","authors":"L. B. D. Chazournes","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-331","url":null,"abstract":"The proliferation of courts and tribunals at the international level brings diversity to international dispute settlement. This multiplicity gives rise to an increasing number of parallel and competing proceedings. Given the relatively recent vintage of this multiplicity of courts and tribunals, such parallel proceedings have, until recently, been rare. As such, international courts and tribunals have had little need to resort to procedural tools for coordinating jurisdiction and, in contrast to domestic legal systems, there had been a paucity of practice amongst international judicial actors having recourse to such tools. Moreover, no real emphasis had been placed on the importance of the role that appropriate procedural rules play in coordinating international jurisdiction. That is, however, beginning to change and this change has been prompted by the problems caused by uncoordinated dispute settlement. There are a number of undesirable consequences that arise from uncoordinated dispute settlement, including, but not limited to, abusive forum shopping, wasted resources, uncertainty, and conflicting judgments.1 The latter can occur when different tribunals make different decisions on disputes with the same facts. The cases of Lauder2 and CME v. Czech Republic3 are an example of conflicting decisions in the area of investment arbitraI.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128040164","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-233
M. Belkahla
La question de la reconnaissance, institution classique du droit international,2 constitue l’un des sujets les plus fascinants de la discipline.3 Cette fascination a pu toutefois être supplantée par une forme de frustration, comme en témoignent les propos de J. Dugard selon lequel « [t]out juriste prétendant examiner les mystères de la [...] reconnaissance et ayant pour dessein d[’en] fournir une explication cohérente [...] dans le cadre d’une théorie juridique s’exposera immanquablement à la dérision et à la vitupération ».4 L’expression de son scepticisme n’a évidemment pas entamé sa témérité ni celle de nombreux membres de la doctrine, puisque la reconnaisI.
{"title":"La qualité étatique accordée par le juge interne : Une reconnaissance procédurale de l’État ?","authors":"M. Belkahla","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-233","url":null,"abstract":"La question de la reconnaissance, institution classique du droit international,2 constitue l’un des sujets les plus fascinants de la discipline.3 Cette fascination a pu toutefois être supplantée par une forme de frustration, comme en témoignent les propos de J. Dugard selon lequel « [t]out juriste prétendant examiner les mystères de la [...] reconnaissance et ayant pour dessein d[’en] fournir une explication cohérente [...] dans le cadre d’une théorie juridique s’exposera immanquablement à la dérision et à la vitupération ».4 L’expression de son scepticisme n’a évidemment pas entamé sa témérité ni celle de nombreux membres de la doctrine, puisque la reconnaisI.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128690363","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-301
Alain Zamaria
Le droit international monétaire est l’une des rares branches du droit international à échapper au phénomène de juridictionnalisation. Dans son cours sur « La Monnaie en Droit International Public » dispensé en 1929 à l’Académie de la Haye, le baron Boris Nolde mentionne dès le chapitre premier « la carence de la doctrine juridique sur la monnaie »1: « la monnaie n’est-elle pas un phénomène essentiellement économique, au sujet duquel le juriste, et à plus forte raison le juriste international, n’ont rien ou presque à dire ? Si le juriste traite la question, ce n’est que de façon accidentelle, on pourrait presque dire en passant, sans jamais en faire le centre de ses études ».2 Pourrait-on également dire du juge qu’il traite « en passant » la question monétaire ? De prime abord, une telle assertion est contestable. Les effets des décisions monétaires prises par une banque centrale, telles qu’une dépréciation monétaire, ne sont pas dénuées de conséquences juridiques et juridictionnelles, et ce, dans de nombreuses branches du droit.3 Les considérations monétaires ne sont pas non plus ignorées du juge, lequel peut anticiper les conséquences monétaires de ses décisions. Le simple fait, pour le juge français, de se référer à « l’évaluation des dégâts [...] à la date où [...] il pouvait être procédé aux travaux destinés à les réparer » signifie une prise en compte de l’inflation lorsque celle-ci dévalue la réparation de dommages matériels.4 Enfin, un contentieux judiciaire lié à la monnaie I.
{"title":"La reconnaissance juridictionnelle des monnaies virtuelles","authors":"Alain Zamaria","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-301","url":null,"abstract":"Le droit international monétaire est l’une des rares branches du droit international à échapper au phénomène de juridictionnalisation. Dans son cours sur « La Monnaie en Droit International Public » dispensé en 1929 à l’Académie de la Haye, le baron Boris Nolde mentionne dès le chapitre premier « la carence de la doctrine juridique sur la monnaie »1: « la monnaie n’est-elle pas un phénomène essentiellement économique, au sujet duquel le juriste, et à plus forte raison le juriste international, n’ont rien ou presque à dire ? Si le juriste traite la question, ce n’est que de façon accidentelle, on pourrait presque dire en passant, sans jamais en faire le centre de ses études ».2 Pourrait-on également dire du juge qu’il traite « en passant » la question monétaire ? De prime abord, une telle assertion est contestable. Les effets des décisions monétaires prises par une banque centrale, telles qu’une dépréciation monétaire, ne sont pas dénuées de conséquences juridiques et juridictionnelles, et ce, dans de nombreuses branches du droit.3 Les considérations monétaires ne sont pas non plus ignorées du juge, lequel peut anticiper les conséquences monétaires de ses décisions. Le simple fait, pour le juge français, de se référer à « l’évaluation des dégâts [...] à la date où [...] il pouvait être procédé aux travaux destinés à les réparer » signifie une prise en compte de l’inflation lorsque celle-ci dévalue la réparation de dommages matériels.4 Enfin, un contentieux judiciaire lié à la monnaie I.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134273904","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/9783845299051-37
M. Papadaki
In this chapter we will follow the thread of the separation of substantive and procedural rules in international adjudication and its importance in international law, using as our example intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). As succinctly put by Judge Weeramantry “intervention affords an example par excellence of the celebrated observation that substantive law is often secreted in the interstices of procedure. The subject is therefore one of special importance, not merely in the sphere of procedure but in the sphere of substantive law as well.”1 We begin our analysis by briefly sketching the origins of this separation, to demonstrate its importance, while noting that boundaries are not only blurred but also permeable. We then turn to examining the history and practice of intervention before the ICJ. More specifically, a typology of interactions shows how procedure can uphold and reflect the values carried by substantive rules and how substantive rules can in turn shape the interpretation of procedural rules. Our goal is to draw an impressionistic picture of the role of intervention through a different and largely under-explored angle of the interaction between substance and procedure. I.
{"title":"Substantive and Procedural Rules in International Adjudication: Exploring their Interaction in Intervention before the International Court of Justice","authors":"M. Papadaki","doi":"10.5771/9783845299051-37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299051-37","url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter we will follow the thread of the separation of substantive and procedural rules in international adjudication and its importance in international law, using as our example intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). As succinctly put by Judge Weeramantry “intervention affords an example par excellence of the celebrated observation that substantive law is often secreted in the interstices of procedure. The subject is therefore one of special importance, not merely in the sphere of procedure but in the sphere of substantive law as well.”1 We begin our analysis by briefly sketching the origins of this separation, to demonstrate its importance, while noting that boundaries are not only blurred but also permeable. We then turn to examining the history and practice of intervention before the ICJ. More specifically, a typology of interactions shows how procedure can uphold and reflect the values carried by substantive rules and how substantive rules can in turn shape the interpretation of procedural rules. Our goal is to draw an impressionistic picture of the role of intervention through a different and largely under-explored angle of the interaction between substance and procedure. I.","PeriodicalId":259556,"journal":{"name":"International Law and Litigation","volume":"16 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134352132","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：