Legal scholars, economists and other social scientist often refer to the idea that countries can be classified into a number of “legal families” or “legal origins”. Yet, this research is unsatisfactory as regards the actual classifications of the legal systems of the world. Legal scholars often do not attempt to classify all countries: rather, in comparative law textbooks, the legal family taxonomy merely serves as a didactic device to outline some similarities and differences between selected countries. This paper also suggests that the legal origins taxonomy, popular with financial economists, is problematic, since, if one traces the source of this taxonomy, there are no substantive explanations why a particular country is considered as belonging to one of these categories. Thus, it is the aim of this paper to fill this gap and to develop a more robust taxonomy of legal systems. This taxonomy is based on a new dataset of 157 countries that is subsequently analysed with tools of network analysis. Applying tools of cluster optimisation, this paper finds that the world’s legal systems can be divided into the four clusters of the “Global Anglosphere”, the “Modern European Legal Culture”, the “Rule by Law or Religion”, and the “Weak Law in Transition”. It displays those clusters in a map, akin to the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map. Finally, it is suggested that identifying such clusters has important implications, not only for our understanding of the legal world, but also for the feasibility of legal transplants and harmonisation. Future research may also examine how these legal networks and clusters are related to economic and other data.A revised version of this paper, entitled "Varieties of Legal Systems: Towards a New Global Taxonomy", is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2703292.
{"title":"A Network-Based Taxonomy of the World's Legal Systems","authors":"M. Siems","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2387584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2387584","url":null,"abstract":"Legal scholars, economists and other social scientist often refer to the idea that countries can be classified into a number of “legal families” or “legal origins”. Yet, this research is unsatisfactory as regards the actual classifications of the legal systems of the world. Legal scholars often do not attempt to classify all countries: rather, in comparative law textbooks, the legal family taxonomy merely serves as a didactic device to outline some similarities and differences between selected countries. This paper also suggests that the legal origins taxonomy, popular with financial economists, is problematic, since, if one traces the source of this taxonomy, there are no substantive explanations why a particular country is considered as belonging to one of these categories. Thus, it is the aim of this paper to fill this gap and to develop a more robust taxonomy of legal systems. This taxonomy is based on a new dataset of 157 countries that is subsequently analysed with tools of network analysis. Applying tools of cluster optimisation, this paper finds that the world’s legal systems can be divided into the four clusters of the “Global Anglosphere”, the “Modern European Legal Culture”, the “Rule by Law or Religion”, and the “Weak Law in Transition”. It displays those clusters in a map, akin to the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map. Finally, it is suggested that identifying such clusters has important implications, not only for our understanding of the legal world, but also for the feasibility of legal transplants and harmonisation. Future research may also examine how these legal networks and clusters are related to economic and other data.A revised version of this paper, entitled \"Varieties of Legal Systems: Towards a New Global Taxonomy\", is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2703292.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125270766","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 paper assesses the remedies, redress and review mechanisms under two transatlantic Security Agreements since their enactment up to the present day, focussing upon the latest EU-US PNR Agreement and its evolution and the EU-US TFTP Agreement. It is argued that the operation of a plethora of governance mechanisms exposes the hollowness of review, remedies and redress within the Agreements, which do not seem to be mitigated or compensated for by rights or redress provisions, for example, to judicial review. The paper shows that there are significant shortcomings in the operation of the reviews of these two Agreements. The operation of the Agreements emphasise how law and governance mechanisms do not necessarily compensate for each other as checks and balances. Accordingly, they demonstrate reasons that the EU should be particularly cautious about replicating this rule-making in EU law, i.e. in adopting an EU PNR based upon the EU-US PNR and a TFTS, based upon the EU-US TFTP.
{"title":"Law and Governance as Checks and Balances in Transatlantic Security: Rights, Redress, and Remedies in EU-US Passenger Name Records and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program","authors":"E. Fahey","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YET012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YET012","url":null,"abstract":"The paper assesses the remedies, redress and review mechanisms under two transatlantic Security Agreements since their enactment up to the present day, focussing upon the latest EU-US PNR Agreement and its evolution and the EU-US TFTP Agreement. It is argued that the operation of a plethora of governance mechanisms exposes the hollowness of review, remedies and redress within the Agreements, which do not seem to be mitigated or compensated for by rights or redress provisions, for example, to judicial review. The paper shows that there are significant shortcomings in the operation of the reviews of these two Agreements. The operation of the Agreements emphasise how law and governance mechanisms do not necessarily compensate for each other as checks and balances. Accordingly, they demonstrate reasons that the EU should be particularly cautious about replicating this rule-making in EU law, i.e. in adopting an EU PNR based upon the EU-US PNR and a TFTS, based upon the EU-US TFTP.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"241 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132222851","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}
Throughout the history of uniform law for international sales, the rules governing the validity of cross-border sales contracts have proven particularly difficult to harmonize because they differ greatly between the various domestic laws. This dilemma inter alia resulted in the "validity exception" in Article 4 sentence 2(a) of the United Nations Convention for Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG) being adopted as compromise, a provision that supposedly excludes such matters from the scope of the uniform sales law. The present article attempts to demonstrate that this provision in fact provides little assistance in deciding which validity-related matters are governed by the Convention and which are not, and that the "validity exception" is therefore in truth irrelevant.It continues by outlining a novel two-step approach to determining the CISG's scope with respect to validity issues. According to this approach, a domestic law rule (pertaining to validity matters or other issues) is displaced by the Convention if (1) it is triggered by a factual situation which the Convention also applies to (the "factual" criterion), and (2) it pertains to a matter that is also regulated by the Convention (the "legal" criterion). Only if both criteria are cumulatively fulfilled, the domestic law rule concerned overlaps with the Convention’s sphere of application in a way that will generally result in its preemption. In the last part of the article, three issues that may be viewed as concerning the "validity" of international sales contracts are discussed, each in turn being viewed through the traditional lenses of Article 4 CISG and the alternative two-step approach. These issues are: Mistakes and their effect upon CISG contracts; Consumer rights of withdrawal; The so-called "button solution" under recent e-commerce laws.
{"title":"The Validity of International Sales Contracts: Irrelevance of the 'Validity Exception' in Article 4 Vienna Sales Convention and a Novel Approach to Determining the Convention's Scope","authors":"Ulrich G. Schroeter","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/vtbpm","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/vtbpm","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the history of uniform law for international sales, the rules governing the validity of cross-border sales contracts have proven particularly difficult to harmonize because they differ greatly between the various domestic laws. This dilemma inter alia resulted in the \"validity exception\" in Article 4 sentence 2(a) of the United Nations Convention for Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG) being adopted as compromise, a provision that supposedly excludes such matters from the scope of the uniform sales law. The present article attempts to demonstrate that this provision in fact provides little assistance in deciding which validity-related matters are governed by the Convention and which are not, and that the \"validity exception\" is therefore in truth irrelevant.It continues by outlining a novel two-step approach to determining the CISG's scope with respect to validity issues. According to this approach, a domestic law rule (pertaining to validity matters or other issues) is displaced by the Convention if (1) it is triggered by a factual situation which the Convention also applies to (the \"factual\" criterion), and (2) it pertains to a matter that is also regulated by the Convention (the \"legal\" criterion). Only if both criteria are cumulatively fulfilled, the domestic law rule concerned overlaps with the Convention’s sphere of application in a way that will generally result in its preemption. In the last part of the article, three issues that may be viewed as concerning the \"validity\" of international sales contracts are discussed, each in turn being viewed through the traditional lenses of Article 4 CISG and the alternative two-step approach. These issues are: Mistakes and their effect upon CISG contracts; Consumer rights of withdrawal; The so-called \"button solution\" under recent e-commerce laws.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134121909","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}
Since the mid 1960s Italy has concluded bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with almost 100 countries. In the last fifteen years, there have been in excess of twenty (known) international arbitrations brought under Italian BITs. The underlying aim of the chapter is to assess the balance between investment protection and the sovereign right to regulate in the public interest that Italian BITs have struck. Such assessment will be carried out on the basis of an analysis of the content and evolution of Italy’s investment treaty making over the last forty years as well as an examination of the way Italian treaties have been interpreted and applied by investment tribunals over the last two decades. The main findings of this chapter are as follows: while Italian BITs show some form of evolution in terms of scope of protection, the balance between investment protection and the sovereign right to regulate remains an open question as the interpretation of Italian BITs by arbitral tribunals settling disputes between Italian investors and a variety of host States has been influenced by the diverse and evolving arbitral case law relating to the broader world of investment treaties.
{"title":"Italy's Investment Treaty Practice and Case-Law: What Balance between Investors’ Protection and General Interests of States?","authors":"F. Ortino, Domenico Di Pietro","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2366345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2366345","url":null,"abstract":"Since the mid 1960s Italy has concluded bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with almost 100 countries. In the last fifteen years, there have been in excess of twenty (known) international arbitrations brought under Italian BITs. The underlying aim of the chapter is to assess the balance between investment protection and the sovereign right to regulate in the public interest that Italian BITs have struck. Such assessment will be carried out on the basis of an analysis of the content and evolution of Italy’s investment treaty making over the last forty years as well as an examination of the way Italian treaties have been interpreted and applied by investment tribunals over the last two decades. The main findings of this chapter are as follows: while Italian BITs show some form of evolution in terms of scope of protection, the balance between investment protection and the sovereign right to regulate remains an open question as the interpretation of Italian BITs by arbitral tribunals settling disputes between Italian investors and a variety of host States has been influenced by the diverse and evolving arbitral case law relating to the broader world of investment treaties.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125999728","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 US is one of only two countries that has never ratified the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and does not recognize education as a fundamental right. Given those realities, this paper examines the growing inequities in American public education as a symptom of what authors Hayward and Swanstrom have called thick injustice.
{"title":"US Public Education as a Form of Thick Injustice","authors":"Helene Slessarev-Jamir","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2275482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2275482","url":null,"abstract":"The US is one of only two countries that has never ratified the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and does not recognize education as a fundamental right. Given those realities, this paper examines the growing inequities in American public education as a symptom of what authors Hayward and Swanstrom have called thick injustice.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130299884","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}
Paper analyses the freedom of provide services, recent judicial practice and trends of developing since “Bolkenstein directive” until today. Directive was suggested with purpose of eliminating obstacles in services area. It provoked controversies not only in EU member states but also in wider public. Previously to second reading of Directive on Services (July 2006) two year work preceded since the Committee published the draft of the Directive. Changes proposal is a balance between liberalization of services and preservation of “European social model”. Directive determines general legal frame in which measures of harmonization are used, along with administrative cooperation and development of treatment codex in certain areas. Most important novelty brought by the Directive is changed principle of “country of origin” in “freedom to provide service”.
{"title":"Freedom to Provide Services in European and Croatian Law","authors":"Nada Bodiroga Vukobrat, Hana Horak","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2237885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2237885","url":null,"abstract":"Paper analyses the freedom of provide services, recent judicial practice and trends of developing since “Bolkenstein directive” until today. Directive was suggested with purpose of eliminating obstacles in services area. It provoked controversies not only in EU member states but also in wider public. Previously to second reading of Directive on Services (July 2006) two year work preceded since the Committee published the draft of the Directive. Changes proposal is a balance between liberalization of services and preservation of “European social model”. Directive determines general legal frame in which measures of harmonization are used, along with administrative cooperation and development of treatment codex in certain areas. Most important novelty brought by the Directive is changed principle of “country of origin” in “freedom to provide service”.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"334 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132248763","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 low level of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflow in Amhara Region given the vast natural and historical endowments and relatively cheap labour availability motivated the researcher to conduct study on governance. Also, the Regional Government has expressed its managerial dilemma on the problem of investment. Hence, various studies revealed that governance is one of the indispensable factors in bringing growth and development in general and increasing inflow of FDI in particular. Therefore, the general objective of the study is to evaluate the influence of governance on FDI inflow in Amhara Region. Thus, the study pursues a causal research methodology; and Regression Model is adopted to measure the overall strength of association between Governance and Outcome variable-FDI. The Likert five-scale interval measurement was used and the overall items reliability measured 8.2 Cronbach’s Alpha. Using stratified sampling, 150 experts from twelve institutions are selected as the sample of the study. Finally, the empirical findings of the study show Public administration’s Efficiency, Accountability and Decency have significant influence on the FDI inflow in the Amhara Region .Hence, the Research Hypothesis (H1) is accepted since the predicator variables have significant impact on outcome variable (FDI inflow). Therefore, the regional government should take immediate steps to improve the investment incentive regimes; bank loan; service delivery systems; on-line information delivery on essential aspects of investment procedures, improve availability of investment plots and related issues; and ensure equitable distribution of investment projects. However, further study should be made to incorporate other factors that affect the FDI performance in the region since the variables of the study are too small to generate sufficient generalizations.
{"title":"The Impact of Governance on Foreign Direct Investment Performance in Amhara Region Title","authors":"T. Daddi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2209773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2209773","url":null,"abstract":"The low level of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflow in Amhara Region given the vast natural and historical endowments and relatively cheap labour availability motivated the researcher to conduct study on governance. Also, the Regional Government has expressed its managerial dilemma on the problem of investment. Hence, various studies revealed that governance is one of the indispensable factors in bringing growth and development in general and increasing inflow of FDI in particular. Therefore, the general objective of the study is to evaluate the influence of governance on FDI inflow in Amhara Region. Thus, the study pursues a causal research methodology; and Regression Model is adopted to measure the overall strength of association between Governance and Outcome variable-FDI. The Likert five-scale interval measurement was used and the overall items reliability measured 8.2 Cronbach’s Alpha. Using stratified sampling, 150 experts from twelve institutions are selected as the sample of the study. Finally, the empirical findings of the study show Public administration’s Efficiency, Accountability and Decency have significant influence on the FDI inflow in the Amhara Region .Hence, the Research Hypothesis (H1) is accepted since the predicator variables have significant impact on outcome variable (FDI inflow). Therefore, the regional government should take immediate steps to improve the investment incentive regimes; bank loan; service delivery systems; on-line information delivery on essential aspects of investment procedures, improve availability of investment plots and related issues; and ensure equitable distribution of investment projects. However, further study should be made to incorporate other factors that affect the FDI performance in the region since the variables of the study are too small to generate sufficient generalizations.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124427181","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}
Competition law is very important in the union of European countries - this is because there is no better way to maintain healthy and homogeneous economic interests within the European common market if there is no laws or regulations in place to check the destructive monsters of monopoly or oligopoly. Days are gone when the search-light of competition regulations focused chiefly on monopolies, nowadays; firms can tacitly or overtly coordinate their affairs in such a way to induce a sick competitive atmosphere that doesn't augur well with the level-playing ground policy of the European Union. Joint dominance is one of the most recurrent modern way through which firms unleash their anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately, this practice is growing stronger and bolder due to the lacuna in the European Treaty - laws in regulating it (Joint Dominance). This paper will critically analyse Article 82(102 TFEU) and the ECMR (European Union Merger Regulation) in order to explore the options available in combating the anti-competitive practice of joint dominance within the European Economic Zone.
{"title":"Critical Analysis of the Anti-Trust Practice of Joint Dominance Under Article 82 of European Competition Law","authors":"N. Nwafor","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2193884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2193884","url":null,"abstract":"Competition law is very important in the union of European countries - this is because there is no better way to maintain healthy and homogeneous economic interests within the European common market if there is no laws or regulations in place to check the destructive monsters of monopoly or oligopoly. Days are gone when the search-light of competition regulations focused chiefly on monopolies, nowadays; firms can tacitly or overtly coordinate their affairs in such a way to induce a sick competitive atmosphere that doesn't augur well with the level-playing ground policy of the European Union. Joint dominance is one of the most recurrent modern way through which firms unleash their anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately, this practice is growing stronger and bolder due to the lacuna in the European Treaty - laws in regulating it (Joint Dominance). This paper will critically analyse Article 82(102 TFEU) and the ECMR (European Union Merger Regulation) in order to explore the options available in combating the anti-competitive practice of joint dominance within the European Economic Zone.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124708991","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}
States continue to abuse human rights and commit mass atrocities even though for the past several decades they have overwhelmingly ratified a host of international human rights treaties. This Article seeks to explain this phenomenon and suggests that where treaty enforcement mechanisms are too weak for states to view them as a credible threat to their sovereignty, even states with the worst practices will regularly and readily commit to treaties designed to promote better human rights practices. I empirically test my credible threat theory against the explanatory power of other extant theories about treaty commitment by examining the relationship between treaty enforcement mechanisms and likelihood of ratification across a broad range of treaties. I include in my analysis the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) — a treaty which contains a strong enforcement mechanism in the form of an independent Prosecutor and the Court, which can punish violators. The results of the statistical tests using data from 1966 to 2008 provide support for the credible threat theory. I find that a state’s human rights ratings do not influence ratification of international human rights treaties with the weakest enforcement mechanisms, such as those that only require the state to self-report its compliance. However, states with poorer records are significantly less likely to commit to the ICC treaty. The implication is that where enforcement mechanisms are strong, states may take their commitment more seriously and join only if they intend to comply. If we structure treaties with stronger enforcement mechanisms, perhaps fewer states will ratify, but at least when they do, they may be held to that commitment.
{"title":"Commitment to International Human Rights Treaties: The Role of Enforcement Mechanisms","authors":"Y. Dutton","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/jvke7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/jvke7","url":null,"abstract":"States continue to abuse human rights and commit mass atrocities even though for the past several decades they have overwhelmingly ratified a host of international human rights treaties. This Article seeks to explain this phenomenon and suggests that where treaty enforcement mechanisms are too weak for states to view them as a credible threat to their sovereignty, even states with the worst practices will regularly and readily commit to treaties designed to promote better human rights practices. I empirically test my credible threat theory against the explanatory power of other extant theories about treaty commitment by examining the relationship between treaty enforcement mechanisms and likelihood of ratification across a broad range of treaties. I include in my analysis the treaty creating the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) — a treaty which contains a strong enforcement mechanism in the form of an independent Prosecutor and the Court, which can punish violators. The results of the statistical tests using data from 1966 to 2008 provide support for the credible threat theory. I find that a state’s human rights ratings do not influence ratification of international human rights treaties with the weakest enforcement mechanisms, such as those that only require the state to self-report its compliance. However, states with poorer records are significantly less likely to commit to the ICC treaty. The implication is that where enforcement mechanisms are strong, states may take their commitment more seriously and join only if they intend to comply. If we structure treaties with stronger enforcement mechanisms, perhaps fewer states will ratify, but at least when they do, they may be held to that commitment.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128070507","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 Article discusses the interrelation of ‘competing’ international mechanisms for the settlement of disputes originating from the same factual background. The problem is assessed with reference to the of the fourth and fifth phases of the Softwood Lumber controversy between the United States and Canada—an immense dispute featuring the interplay between domestic litigation, investment arbitration and dispute settlement conducted under the rules of different chapters of the regional trade agreement (North American Free Trade Agreement), WTO dispute settlement, as well as interstate arbitration proceedings conducted within the London Court of International Arbitration under specially ‘customized’ rules of the latter.
{"title":"The Interplay of International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: The Softwood Lumber Controversy","authors":"L. Guglya","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDQ020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDQ020","url":null,"abstract":"The Article discusses the interrelation of ‘competing’ international mechanisms for the settlement of disputes originating from the same factual background. The problem is assessed with reference to the of the fourth and fifth phases of the Softwood Lumber controversy between the United States and Canada—an immense dispute featuring the interplay between domestic litigation, investment arbitration and dispute settlement conducted under the rules of different chapters of the regional trade agreement (North American Free Trade Agreement), WTO dispute settlement, as well as interstate arbitration proceedings conducted within the London Court of International Arbitration under specially ‘customized’ rules of the latter.","PeriodicalId":319905,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Treaties & Other Sources of International Law (Topic)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133186851","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：