Pub Date : 2019-12-20DOI: 10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-03-02
M. Langford, B. Berge
The Norwegian constitution is the second oldest living constitution in the world, and the country’s Supreme Court was also the second in the world to judicially review legislation. Yet, Norway’s deep constitutional history has gone often unnoticed in comparative scholarship, while comparative constitutional law within Norway has not attracted significant attention, despite the many constitutional influences from abroad. This article introduces the Norwegian constitution to an international audience and places it within a comparative perspective for a Norwegian readership. After a brief overview of comparative method(s), the remainder of the article focuses on three core areas of constitutional law: system of government, judicial review, and constitutional amendments. Using descriptive statistics, qualitative case studies, and legal and archival sources, the Norwegian experience is situated within a global context.
{"title":"Norway’s Constitution in a Comparative Perspective","authors":"M. Langford, B. Berge","doi":"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-03-02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-03-02","url":null,"abstract":"The Norwegian constitution is the second oldest living constitution in the world, and the country’s Supreme Court was also the second in the world to judicially review legislation. Yet, Norway’s deep constitutional history has gone often unnoticed in comparative scholarship, while comparative constitutional law within Norway has not attracted significant attention, despite the many constitutional influences from abroad. This article introduces the Norwegian constitution to an international audience and places it within a comparative perspective for a Norwegian readership. After a brief overview of comparative method(s), the remainder of the article focuses on three core areas of constitutional law: system of government, judicial review, and constitutional amendments. Using descriptive statistics, qualitative case studies, and legal and archival sources, the Norwegian experience is situated within a global context.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"198-228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48281503","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 : 2019-09-17DOI: 10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-03
E. Brandon
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of civilian populations and classifies this action as a grave breach of the laws of war. However, attempts to prosecute this grave violation are hindered by an exception for evacuations of the civilian population for imperative military reasons, which has yet to be satisfactorily defined, either in scholarly literature or in the law. This article analyses the drafting history of the Geneva Convention provisions, the practice of international tribunals, the practice of States, and the practice of international and regional human rights organisations to establish a concrete definition of this exception so that international criminal prosecutors can prosecute confidently this grave war crime and defendants are assured of appropriate notice of all elements of this crime.
{"title":"Grave Breaches and Justifications: The War Crime of Forcible Transfer or Deportation of Civilians and the Exception for Evacuations for Imperative Military Reasons","authors":"E. Brandon","doi":"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-03","url":null,"abstract":"The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of civilian populations and classifies this action as a grave breach of the laws of war. However, attempts to prosecute this grave violation are hindered by an exception for evacuations of the civilian population for imperative military reasons, which has yet to be satisfactorily defined, either in scholarly literature or in the law. This article analyses the drafting history of the Geneva Convention provisions, the practice of international tribunals, the practice of States, and the practice of international and regional human rights organisations to establish a concrete definition of this exception so that international criminal prosecutors can prosecute confidently this grave war crime and defendants are assured of appropriate notice of all elements of this crime.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48909696","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 : 2019-09-17DOI: 10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-01
Birgitte Hagland
{"title":"From Aristotle’s ʻArithmetic Proportion’ to Ménage-à-trois – Anglo-American Justice Theories in the Context of Norwegian Tort Law","authors":"Birgitte Hagland","doi":"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44923752","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 : 2019-05-14DOI: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-07
Annette Kur, Ulf Maunsbach
An increased number of intellectual property rights infringements challenges modern society and its legal institutions. The development is enhanced by digitalisation, following in the footsteps of the emerging information society and the ease by which intellectual property rights can be shared. The fact that sharing is a borderless activity has made it crucial to find solutions to a growing number of cross-border disputes. The development unfolds in two ways: the enhancement of legal initiatives as regards substantive intellectual property protection, and an increasing interest in private international law. In this article, this development is discussed with a specific focus on choice-of-law issues that arise in cross-border infringement cases. The solution of applying the law of the protecting country as a principle rule that is found in Article 8 in the Rome II Regulation is thoroughly analysed, and some alternative ways to solve ‘choice of law’ issues are presented in light of the development of a new choice-of-law regime in Norway.
{"title":"Choice of Law and Intellectual Property Rights","authors":"Annette Kur, Ulf Maunsbach","doi":"10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-07","url":null,"abstract":"An increased number of intellectual property rights infringements challenges modern society and its legal institutions. The development is enhanced by digitalisation, following in the footsteps of the emerging information society and the ease by which intellectual property rights can be shared. The fact that sharing is a borderless activity has made it crucial to find solutions to a growing number of cross-border disputes. The development unfolds in two ways: the enhancement of legal initiatives as regards substantive intellectual property protection, and an increasing interest in private international law. In this article, this development is discussed with a specific focus on choice-of-law issues that arise in cross-border infringement cases. The solution of applying the law of the protecting country as a principle rule that is found in Article 8 in the Rome II Regulation is thoroughly analysed, and some alternative ways to solve ‘choice of law’ issues are presented in light of the development of a new choice-of-law regime in Norway.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46970982","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 : 2019-05-14DOI: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-02
Herbert Kronke
Both the 1980 Rome Convention and the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations have not addressed the issue of the proprietary effects of assignments. Intense doctrinal debate, discussion of the issue in various appellate courts’ jurisprudence as well as (limited) empirical research are the basis for a current draft Regulation that proposes a two-tiered system of connecting factors (law of the assignor’s habitual residence, law of the assigned claim in specific cases). Subject to a few clarifications that are, in the author’s view, highly recommendable the instrument will deliver greatly enhanced legal certainty.
{"title":"Assignment of Claims and Proprietary Effects: Overview of Doctrinal Debate and the EU Commission’s Proposal","authors":"Herbert Kronke","doi":"10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-02","url":null,"abstract":"Both the 1980 Rome Convention and the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations have not addressed the issue of the proprietary effects of assignments. Intense doctrinal debate, discussion of the issue in various appellate courts’ jurisprudence as well as (limited) empirical research are the basis for a current draft Regulation that proposes a two-tiered system of connecting factors (law of the assignor’s habitual residence, law of the assigned claim in specific cases). Subject to a few clarifications that are, in the author’s view, highly recommendable the instrument will deliver greatly enhanced legal certainty.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43316961","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 : 2019-05-14DOI: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-08
P. D. Vareilles-Sommières
This paper analyses the reasons why Rome II restricts party autonomy in Articles 6 and 8.
本文分析了《罗马II》第6条和第8条限制政党自治的原因。
{"title":"Rationale of the Exclusion of Choice of Law by the Parties in Articles 6(4) and 8(3) of Rome II Regulation","authors":"P. D. Vareilles-Sommières","doi":"10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-08","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the reasons why Rome II restricts party autonomy in Articles 6 and 8.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43583259","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 : 2019-05-14DOI: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-09
Michael Hellner
The article explores Article 14 on choice of law by the parties in Rome II and the possibilities for party autonomy. There is a limit to party autonomy where both parties are not ‘pursuing commerci ...
{"title":"Choice of Law by the Parties in Rome II: Rationale of the Differentiation between Consumer and Commercial Contracts","authors":"Michael Hellner","doi":"10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-09","url":null,"abstract":"The article explores Article 14 on choice of law by the parties in Rome II and the possibilities for party autonomy. There is a limit to party autonomy where both parties are not ‘pursuing commerci ...","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44654291","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 : 2019-05-14DOI: 10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-06
P. A. Nielsen
The conflict between defamation and privacy rights on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other in international litigation is very controversial in the EU. The phenomenon, also known as libel tourism, is caused by a mixture of national and EU rules of jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments, even though the former and latter are harmonised by the EU. The problem is that the EU has not yet harmonised the choice-of-law rules for defamation and privacy rights. Thus, proposals for reform of the EU choice-of-law rules are discussed.
{"title":"Choice of Law for Defamation, Privacy Rights and Freedom of Speech","authors":"P. A. Nielsen","doi":"10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-06","url":null,"abstract":"The conflict between defamation and privacy rights on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other in international litigation is very controversial in the EU. The phenomenon, also known as libel tourism, is caused by a mixture of national and EU rules of jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments, even though the former and latter are harmonised by the EU. The problem is that the EU has not yet harmonised the choice-of-law rules for defamation and privacy rights. Thus, proposals for reform of the EU choice-of-law rules are discussed.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47770913","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 : 2019-05-14DOI: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-10
Michael Hellner
An analysis of the 1973 Hague Convention on the law applicable to product liability and the Rome II Regulation leads to the conclusion that the former takes precedence. What is more, both the explanatory report to the Hague Convention and case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union agree that in case there is lacunae in the Hague Convention, the answer should be sought in the Rome II Regulation.
{"title":"The Relationship between the Rome II Regulation and the 1973 Hague Convention","authors":"Michael Hellner","doi":"10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2019-01-10","url":null,"abstract":"An analysis of the 1973 Hague Convention on the law applicable to product liability and the Rome II Regulation leads to the conclusion that the former takes precedence. What is more, both the explanatory report to the Hague Convention and case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union agree that in case there is lacunae in the Hague Convention, the answer should be sought in the Rome II Regulation.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47816722","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：