This Article critiques the changing U.S. approach toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). It begins by isolating those aspects central to prior U.S. opposition to the ICC. It then assesses the relevance of these concerns in light of the Court’s work to date. This Article also considers the outcome of the 2010 ICC Review Conference. It analyzes the amendments made to the Court’s Statute regarding the controversial crime of aggression and explains why these new provisions are not likely to create significant concerns for the United States. As its final area of inquiry, this Article examines the early work of the ICC in order to determine whether the institution is in fact fulfilling its mission to act as a “court of last resort.” Determining that the ICC’s present approach to case admissibility neither provides evidence that the Court is on a path that assures its anti-impunity goal nor comports with the U.S. preference to see justice performed at the national level, this Article concludes by noting the changes that will have to be made before U.S. accession can become a possibility
{"title":"The United States and the International Criminal Court Post-Bush: A Beautiful Courtship but an Unlikely Marriage","authors":"M. Fairlie","doi":"10.15779/Z38DW8B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38DW8B","url":null,"abstract":"This Article critiques the changing U.S. approach toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). It begins by isolating those aspects central to prior U.S. opposition to the ICC. It then assesses the relevance of these concerns in light of the Court’s work to date. This Article also considers the outcome of the 2010 ICC Review Conference. It analyzes the amendments made to the Court’s Statute regarding the controversial crime of aggression and explains why these new provisions are not likely to create significant concerns for the United States. As its final area of inquiry, this Article examines the early work of the ICC in order to determine whether the institution is in fact fulfilling its mission to act as a “court of last resort.” Determining that the ICC’s present approach to case admissibility neither provides evidence that the Court is on a path that assures its anti-impunity goal nor comports with the U.S. preference to see justice performed at the national level, this Article concludes by noting the changes that will have to be made before U.S. accession can become a possibility","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130205055","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}
This article explores the divergence between international and national legal responses to maritime piracy, and it addresses the benefits of a unified international legal framework. Current domestic, regional and international legal frameworks fail to adequately combat the nature and scale of maritime piracy, which increasingly impacts the shipping, global manufacturing and tourism industries and which governments now consider to be a serious problem. As of yet, no unified legal approach exists to address the problem of modern piracy. The crux of the argument advanced in this article is that an inadvertent – yet dangerous – bifurcation of legal developments has unfolded within the field of maritime piracy, consequently creating a body of law that lacks harmony.
{"title":"Toward An International Law of Piracy Sui Generis: How the Dual Nature of Maritime Piracy Law Enables Piracy to Flourish","authors":"Lucas Bento","doi":"10.15779/Z38PD44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38PD44","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the divergence between international and national legal responses to maritime piracy, and it addresses the benefits of a unified international legal framework. Current domestic, regional and international legal frameworks fail to adequately combat the nature and scale of maritime piracy, which increasingly impacts the shipping, global manufacturing and tourism industries and which governments now consider to be a serious problem. As of yet, no unified legal approach exists to address the problem of modern piracy. The crux of the argument advanced in this article is that an inadvertent – yet dangerous – bifurcation of legal developments has unfolded within the field of maritime piracy, consequently creating a body of law that lacks harmony.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124502462","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 concept of a “right to the truth” gives the families of victims of serious human rights violations an independent enforceable right to learn the truth about what happened to their relatives. The right is rooted in those provisions of international human rights conventions that prohibit inhuman treatment and guarantee effective access to justice. This article traces the evolution of this concept, considers whether it has a correlation in international criminal law and considers some of the synergies that are created as the concept of the right to know continues to evolve as a principle of international law.
{"title":"The Right to Truth in the Fight Against Impunity","authors":"Dermot Groome","doi":"10.15779/Z38B35P","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38B35P","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of a “right to the truth” gives the families of victims of serious human rights violations an independent enforceable right to learn the truth about what happened to their relatives. The right is rooted in those provisions of international human rights conventions that prohibit inhuman treatment and guarantee effective access to justice. This article traces the evolution of this concept, considers whether it has a correlation in international criminal law and considers some of the synergies that are created as the concept of the right to know continues to evolve as a principle of international law.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"283 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124524450","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}
This article examines the current state of the rule regarding aiding and abetting liability under the Alien Tort Statute. It analyzes a split between appellate court decisions with respect to the mens rea element of the rule in light of relevant international law jurisprudence and the Supreme Court's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.
{"title":"To Proceed with Caution? Aiding and Abetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute","authors":"Ryan S. Lincoln","doi":"10.15779/Z387D37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z387D37","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the current state of the rule regarding aiding and abetting liability under the Alien Tort Statute. It analyzes a split between appellate court decisions with respect to the mens rea element of the rule in light of relevant international law jurisprudence and the Supreme Court's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130915719","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}
This paper explores the origins of the anomalous development of substantive due process in the Indian Supreme Court in the area of personal liberty and preventive detention cases, given that the framers of the Indian Constitution deliberately chose to omit a due process clause to preclude substantive due process jurisrpudence. It proceeds to examine the important role of judicial "borrowing" in this process, in which justices relied on foreign precedent and legal scholarship, as well as international legal norms, to help overcome constitutional constraints. The paper analyzes personal liberty and preventive detention cases in order to gain a better understanding of the processes by which judges employ borrowing to advance "universalist" (versus particularist) legal norms, and then seeks to generalize from the Indian case by proposing a theoretical approach for understanding how judicial borrowing can be understood as a dynamic process that changes over time in new developing constitutional systems.
{"title":"The Origins of Due Process in India: The Role of Borrowing in Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Cases","authors":"M. Mate","doi":"10.15779/Z38X36Z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38X36Z","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the origins of the anomalous development of substantive due process in the Indian Supreme Court in the area of personal liberty and preventive detention cases, given that the framers of the Indian Constitution deliberately chose to omit a due process clause to preclude substantive due process jurisrpudence. It proceeds to examine the important role of judicial \"borrowing\" in this process, in which justices relied on foreign precedent and legal scholarship, as well as international legal norms, to help overcome constitutional constraints. The paper analyzes personal liberty and preventive detention cases in order to gain a better understanding of the processes by which judges employ borrowing to advance \"universalist\" (versus particularist) legal norms, and then seeks to generalize from the Indian case by proposing a theoretical approach for understanding how judicial borrowing can be understood as a dynamic process that changes over time in new developing constitutional systems.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132559120","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}
Multinational corporations confront a brave new world of compliance that extends far beyond a company's commercial goals and onto terrain that can deeply impact its survival and prosperity. The rules of the game have changed over the last two decades as the primary elements of corporate social responsibility (CSR) human rights, environment, labor, and anti-corruption priorities advanced in the halls of government, in the rule-making of international institutions, in courtrooms, and in a growing number of board rooms. We argue in this article that the stakes are simply too high for any corporate manager or director to deny or seek to evade CSR and this new regime of compliance. The business case for CSR will become increasingly dependent upon a sophisticated, multi-layered regime of compliance. The ultimate goal should be to make social and human rights issues an integral part of a
{"title":"The Five Levels of CSR Compliance: The Resiliency of Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Statute and the Case for a Counterattack Strategy in Compliance Theory","authors":"David J. Scheffer, Caroline Kaeb","doi":"10.15779/Z38T65N","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38T65N","url":null,"abstract":"Multinational corporations confront a brave new world of compliance that extends far beyond a company's commercial goals and onto terrain that can deeply impact its survival and prosperity. The rules of the game have changed over the last two decades as the primary elements of corporate social responsibility (CSR) human rights, environment, labor, and anti-corruption priorities advanced in the halls of government, in the rule-making of international institutions, in courtrooms, and in a growing number of board rooms. We argue in this article that the stakes are simply too high for any corporate manager or director to deny or seek to evade CSR and this new regime of compliance. The business case for CSR will become increasingly dependent upon a sophisticated, multi-layered regime of compliance. The ultimate goal should be to make social and human rights issues an integral part of a","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124136828","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}
I.Introduction ................................................................................................... 496 II.Historical and Doctrinal Background of MFN Clauses ................................ 506 A. The Structure of M FN Clauses ..................................................... 506 B. The Historical Development of MFN Clauses ............................. 509 C. Codification on MFN Clauses by the International Law C om m ission ................................................................................. 5 14 III.Multilateralizing Substantive Investment Protection .................................. 518 A. Importing More Favorable Investor Rights .................................. 519 B. Limits to the Operation of MFN Clauses ..................................... 521 1. Explicit Restrictions of the Scope of Application of MFN C lau ses ................................................................................ 52 1 2. Restrictions of MFN Clauses Based on the Scope of Application of the Basic Treaty ........................................... 523 C. Circumventing Restrictions of MFN Treatment ........................... 525 IV.Multilateralizing Procedural Investment Protection ................................... 528 A. Circumventing Admissibility-Related Access Restrictions to Investor-State Dispute Settlement ................................................ 530
I.Introduction ...................................................................................................496二世。最惠国条款的历史和教义的背景 ................................506 A。M FN条款的结构 .....................................................506 b .最惠国条款的历史发展 .............................509 C .编纂国际法C om m最惠国条款的探险任务 .................................................................................5 14 iii .Multilateralizing实质性的投资保护 ..................................518 A。进口更多的有利的投资者权益 ..................................519 b的操作限制最惠国条款 .....................................521年1。明确限制最惠国C刘ses的适用范围 ................................................................................52 . 12。限制最惠国条款的适用范围的基础上的基本条约 ...........................................523 c .绕过限制最惠国待遇 ...........................525年IV.Multilateralizing过程投资保护 ...................................528 A。绕过Admissibility-Related访问限制提起争端解决 ................................................530
{"title":"Mulitilateralizing Investment Treaties through Most-Favored-Nation Clauses","authors":"S. Schill","doi":"10.15779/Z38Z369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Z369","url":null,"abstract":"I.Introduction ................................................................................................... 496 II.Historical and Doctrinal Background of MFN Clauses ................................ 506 A. The Structure of M FN Clauses ..................................................... 506 B. The Historical Development of MFN Clauses ............................. 509 C. Codification on MFN Clauses by the International Law C om m ission ................................................................................. 5 14 III.Multilateralizing Substantive Investment Protection .................................. 518 A. Importing More Favorable Investor Rights .................................. 519 B. Limits to the Operation of MFN Clauses ..................................... 521 1. Explicit Restrictions of the Scope of Application of MFN C lau ses ................................................................................ 52 1 2. Restrictions of MFN Clauses Based on the Scope of Application of the Basic Treaty ........................................... 523 C. Circumventing Restrictions of MFN Treatment ........................... 525 IV.Multilateralizing Procedural Investment Protection ................................... 528 A. Circumventing Admissibility-Related Access Restrictions to Investor-State Dispute Settlement ................................................ 530","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126443047","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}
Recent assertions of the political question doctrine by battlefield contractor defendants in tort litigation have brought new life to the doctrine while raising new questions. The lawsuits stem from incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan and include plaintiffs ranging from local nationals suing contract interrogators and interpreters, to contract employees suing another contractor following insurgent attacks, to U.S. service members suing contractors after vehicle and airplane crashes. The lawsuits involve tort claims, which on their face do not conjure up images of a constitutional power struggle, but in at least fifteen cases thus far contractor defendants have asserted the political question doctrine as a defense. The political question doctrine addresses whether the judiciary should review government action or decisions and yet contractors are asserting the doctrine in cases where the government is not a named party and has remained conspicuously silent. This article analyzes the confused application of the political question doctrine to battlefield related contractor tort litigation and proposes a methodology to bring clarity to future decisions. Absent a more rigid analytical approach by the judiciary and a change in the government's attitude, the confusion surrounding the political question doctrine and the inconsistency of its application to the inevitable future contractor cases will only grow.
{"title":"Square Peg in a Round Hole: Government Contractor Battlefield Tort Liability and the Political Question Doctrine","authors":"C. Jenks","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1351584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1351584","url":null,"abstract":"Recent assertions of the political question doctrine by battlefield contractor defendants in tort litigation have brought new life to the doctrine while raising new questions. The lawsuits stem from incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan and include plaintiffs ranging from local nationals suing contract interrogators and interpreters, to contract employees suing another contractor following insurgent attacks, to U.S. service members suing contractors after vehicle and airplane crashes. The lawsuits involve tort claims, which on their face do not conjure up images of a constitutional power struggle, but in at least fifteen cases thus far contractor defendants have asserted the political question doctrine as a defense. The political question doctrine addresses whether the judiciary should review government action or decisions and yet contractors are asserting the doctrine in cases where the government is not a named party and has remained conspicuously silent. This article analyzes the confused application of the political question doctrine to battlefield related contractor tort litigation and proposes a methodology to bring clarity to future decisions. Absent a more rigid analytical approach by the judiciary and a change in the government's attitude, the confusion surrounding the political question doctrine and the inconsistency of its application to the inevitable future contractor cases will only grow.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127756661","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}
Scholarly debate about minority language rights in Europe is usually framed in terms of concern with either regional language minorities (such as Basque speakers in Spain) or concern with immigrant language minorities (such as Turkish speakers in Germany), with the interests of the two groups being seen as distinct, or even opposed. As a consequence, scholarship in this area has thus far focused upon the fact that a two-tier system of rights exists, with both nation state governments and trans-European institutions privileging regional groupings, rather than immigrant groups, with little exploration of the relationship between the rights of the two different groupings. This Essay argues, in contrast, that in recent years, national governments and pan-European organizations have fundamentally altered their approach to the language rights of both national minorities and immigrant minorities - in part due to the role played by transnational language communities and European migrants - so that the rights of regional and immigrant language minorities may actually be converging. The Essay proposes that a close analysis of the recent recommendations of the Advisory Committee to the Committee of Ministers on the Framework Convention on National Minorities and the Committee of Experts on the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, combined with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, reveals an emerging trend toward this fundamental reframing of minority language rights. The treaty bodies and the ECJ appear to be departing from the traditionally held view of language rights as inherently preservationist and only applicable to members of certain indigenous, territorially anchored minority communities, and are instead adopting a broader, more expansive, human-rights based interpretation of language laws. Treaty bodies and transnational courts also appear to be moving away from treating language groups as collective holders of language rights, to treating individual language speakers as the primary rights-holders. In line with this reframing, this Essay argues that the very instruments originally constructed to protect the rights of the hitherto privileged regional minority groups may also ultimately be employed to promote the rights of individual speakers of the as-yet less favored immigrant languages.
{"title":"Regional Minorities, Immigrants, and Migrants: The Reframing of Minority Language Rights in Europe","authors":"Stella Burch Elias","doi":"10.15779/Z38S93M","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38S93M","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly debate about minority language rights in Europe is usually framed in terms of concern with either regional language minorities (such as Basque speakers in Spain) or concern with immigrant language minorities (such as Turkish speakers in Germany), with the interests of the two groups being seen as distinct, or even opposed. As a consequence, scholarship in this area has thus far focused upon the fact that a two-tier system of rights exists, with both nation state governments and trans-European institutions privileging regional groupings, rather than immigrant groups, with little exploration of the relationship between the rights of the two different groupings. This Essay argues, in contrast, that in recent years, national governments and pan-European organizations have fundamentally altered their approach to the language rights of both national minorities and immigrant minorities - in part due to the role played by transnational language communities and European migrants - so that the rights of regional and immigrant language minorities may actually be converging. The Essay proposes that a close analysis of the recent recommendations of the Advisory Committee to the Committee of Ministers on the Framework Convention on National Minorities and the Committee of Experts on the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, combined with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, reveals an emerging trend toward this fundamental reframing of minority language rights. The treaty bodies and the ECJ appear to be departing from the traditionally held view of language rights as inherently preservationist and only applicable to members of certain indigenous, territorially anchored minority communities, and are instead adopting a broader, more expansive, human-rights based interpretation of language laws. Treaty bodies and transnational courts also appear to be moving away from treating language groups as collective holders of language rights, to treating individual language speakers as the primary rights-holders. In line with this reframing, this Essay argues that the very instruments originally constructed to protect the rights of the hitherto privileged regional minority groups may also ultimately be employed to promote the rights of individual speakers of the as-yet less favored immigrant languages.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122131396","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}
I. IN TRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 352 II. THE EUROFOOD CONTROVERSY ........................................................... 355 III. THE EUROPEAN REGULATION ON TRANSNATIONAL INSOLVENCY ........ 357 A. The Problem of Transnational Insolvency ................................... 357 B. A Focus on the European Regulation ........................................... 360 IV. EUROFOOD AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ............................ 363 V . CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ................................................................... 366 A. Right Question, Wrong Answer? ................................................. 366 B. Is the EC Regulation Actually Working? ..................................... 367
{"title":"From Whipped Cream to Multibillion Euro Financial Collapse: The European Regulation on Transnational Insolvency in Action","authors":"M. Winkler","doi":"10.15779/Z388H29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z388H29","url":null,"abstract":"I. IN TRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 352 II. THE EUROFOOD CONTROVERSY ........................................................... 355 III. THE EUROPEAN REGULATION ON TRANSNATIONAL INSOLVENCY ........ 357 A. The Problem of Transnational Insolvency ................................... 357 B. A Focus on the European Regulation ........................................... 360 IV. EUROFOOD AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ............................ 363 V . CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ................................................................... 366 A. Right Question, Wrong Answer? ................................................. 366 B. Is the EC Regulation Actually Working? ..................................... 367","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123648610","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：