The Monetary Gold Principle is closely related to the concept of international responsibility. According to the ICJ Judgment (1954) in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate in a case between two parties, when the legal interests of a third party “would not only be affected by the decision, but would form the very subject matter of the decision”. This paper attempts to find out if the Monetary Gold Principle can be applied if the third party is an international organizations and how it is connected to the member states responsibility.
{"title":"The Monetary Gold Principle and the Member States Responsibility","authors":"C. Samara","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3450156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450156","url":null,"abstract":"The Monetary Gold Principle is closely related to the concept of international responsibility. According to the ICJ Judgment (1954) in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate in a case between two parties, when the legal interests of a third party “would not only be affected by the decision, but would form the very subject matter of the decision”. This paper attempts to find out if the Monetary Gold Principle can be applied if the third party is an international organizations and how it is connected to the member states responsibility.","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127678235","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 EU is a strange phenomenon, whether regarded from the perspective of international or domestic law. It evokes many questions on the relationship of its legal order with international law and domestic law, respectively. Despite the increasing trend by the CJEU to emphasize the EU’s autonomy—both, internally and externally—, from an international law perspective, there is no reason to per se “detach” the EU from the international legal framework. This is in part also evident in how international dispute settlement bodies address questions touching upon the EU legal order and its relation to international law. This contribution focuses on the nature of the EU legal order as designated by international dispute settlement bodies, and particularly its relationship with the international legal order. On the basis of examples from four different fields—general international law, trade law, human rights law and investment law—, theoretical, jurisdictional and substantive reconciliatory techniques are identified. In particular, it is shown that the classification of the EU legal order as a subsystem of international law, as a de facto domestic order or as a sui generis legal order predetermines which conflict rules and reconciliatory techniques find application.
{"title":"The Perception of the EU Legal Order in International Law: An In- and Outside View","authors":"C. Binder, Jane A. Hofbauer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3098788","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3098788","url":null,"abstract":"The EU is a strange phenomenon, whether regarded from the perspective of international or domestic law. It evokes many questions on the relationship of its legal order with international law and domestic law, respectively. Despite the increasing trend by the CJEU to emphasize the EU’s autonomy—both, internally and externally—, from an international law perspective, there is no reason to per se “detach” the EU from the international legal framework. This is in part also evident in how international dispute settlement bodies address questions touching upon the EU legal order and its relation to international law. This contribution focuses on the nature of the EU legal order as designated by international dispute settlement bodies, and particularly its relationship with the international legal order. On the basis of examples from four different fields—general international law, trade law, human rights law and investment law—, theoretical, jurisdictional and substantive reconciliatory techniques are identified. In particular, it is shown that the classification of the EU legal order as a subsystem of international law, as a de facto domestic order or as a sui generis legal order predetermines which conflict rules and reconciliatory techniques find application.","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122374461","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 : 2017-09-01DOI: 10.1556/2052.2017.58.3.4
C. Nagy
The paper presents, in an analytical manner, Hungary’s legal experiences with international investment arbitration, giving an in-depth overview of the country’s ICSID cases and their background. Investment disputes are notoriously complex and have several political, economic and regulatory aspects. The purpose of the paper is to present the Hungarian investment disputes in the context of their local background and the national regulatory environment.
{"title":"Hungarian Cases Before ICSID Tribunals: The Hungarian Experience with Investment Arbitration","authors":"C. Nagy","doi":"10.1556/2052.2017.58.3.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2017.58.3.4","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents, in an analytical manner, Hungary’s legal experiences with international investment arbitration, giving an in-depth overview of the country’s ICSID cases and their background. Investment disputes are notoriously complex and have several political, economic and regulatory aspects. The purpose of the paper is to present the Hungarian investment disputes in the context of their local background and the national regulatory environment.","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125176146","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 : 2017-01-12DOI: 10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-2-135-155
Marina O. Lits, Sergei Alexandrovich, A. Tikhomirova
It is well known that the modern day technologies that drive our global society are highly dependent on the use of outer space. For example, daily activities such as sending emails, making phone calls and carrying out bank transactions cannot be done unless satellite technologies are involved. When you catch a plane, the air traffic control is dependent on GPS. Even natural disaster management is dependent on satellite imaging. Taking into account the importance of this, it becomes increasingly necessary to be knowledgeable in the field of international law as it is the only sphere of law that reaches beyond the physical boundaries of the Earth, goes deep into space and provides protection for today’s society. With new steps being taken to exploit further the potentials of outer space, and with increasing talk of new space missions and new discoveries, current international space law is being placed under scrutiny, for it should be remembered that the major international legal documents in this field were adopted in the middle of the 20th century, and thus there are fears that the law may have become obsolete, irrelevant in the face of new challenges in the use of outer space. This paper delivers an analysis of existing international space law and attempts to raise several crucial issues pertinent in the area.
{"title":"International Space Law","authors":"Marina O. Lits, Sergei Alexandrovich, A. Tikhomirova","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-2-135-155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-2-135-155","url":null,"abstract":"It is well known that the modern day technologies that drive our global society are highly dependent on the use of outer space. For example, daily activities such as sending emails, making phone calls and carrying out bank transactions cannot be done unless satellite technologies are involved. When you catch a plane, the air traffic control is dependent on GPS. Even natural disaster management is dependent on satellite imaging. Taking into account the importance of this, it becomes increasingly necessary to be knowledgeable in the field of international law as it is the only sphere of law that reaches beyond the physical boundaries of the Earth, goes deep into space and provides protection for today’s society. With new steps being taken to exploit further the potentials of outer space, and with increasing talk of new space missions and new discoveries, current international space law is being placed under scrutiny, for it should be remembered that the major international legal documents in this field were adopted in the middle of the 20th century, and thus there are fears that the law may have become obsolete, irrelevant in the face of new challenges in the use of outer space. This paper delivers an analysis of existing international space law and attempts to raise several crucial issues pertinent in the area.","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123588772","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 20th century witnessed a transformative, “tectonic” shift in international law, from “absolute” to “restrictive” theories of sovereign immunity. As conventionally understood, however, this dramatic transformation represented only a shift in the default rule. Under absolute immunity, national courts could not hear lawsuits and enforce judgments against a foreign sovereign without its consent. Under restrictive immunity, foreign sovereigns were presumptively not immune when they engaged in commercial acts. We demonstrate that market practices undermine this conventional understanding. Using an extensive, two-century data set of contracts between foreign governments and private creditors, we show that contracting parties have long treated absolute immunity as akin to a mandatory rule, which they could not reliably change by contract. By contrast, we show that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the U.S. and the State Immunities Act 1978 in the U.K. — two statutes largely overlooked by international law scholarship — fundamentally reordered a global market for contracts. We explore why the conventional narrative, which relies on analysis of traditional legal materials, is at such odds with the “law on the ground.”
{"title":"Differing Perceptions? Market Practice and the Evolution of Foreign Sovereign Immunity","authors":"Mark C. Weidemaier, G. Gulati","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2739423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2739423","url":null,"abstract":"The 20th century witnessed a transformative, “tectonic” shift in international law, from “absolute” to “restrictive” theories of sovereign immunity. As conventionally understood, however, this dramatic transformation represented only a shift in the default rule. Under absolute immunity, national courts could not hear lawsuits and enforce judgments against a foreign sovereign without its consent. Under restrictive immunity, foreign sovereigns were presumptively not immune when they engaged in commercial acts. We demonstrate that market practices undermine this conventional understanding. Using an extensive, two-century data set of contracts between foreign governments and private creditors, we show that contracting parties have long treated absolute immunity as akin to a mandatory rule, which they could not reliably change by contract. By contrast, we show that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the U.S. and the State Immunities Act 1978 in the U.K. — two statutes largely overlooked by international law scholarship — fundamentally reordered a global market for contracts. We explore why the conventional narrative, which relies on analysis of traditional legal materials, is at such odds with the “law on the ground.”","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116901473","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}
In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court confirmed what it had only hinted at previously — that general jurisdiction over a corporation was limited to a state that could be regarded as its “home.” In doing so, the Court brought the United States closer to the rest of the world in its approach to general jurisdiction. What may have been overlooked, however, is the impact of Daimler on actions brought to recognize and enforce foreign country judgments and foreign arbitral awards if the Daimler standard is applied in that context. Some courts have already done so. Professors Silberman and Simowitz offer an overview of the present jurisdictional regimes for recognition and enforcement actions with respect to both foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Their own analysis concludes that a jurisdictional nexus should be required for recognition and enforcement but that the context of recognition and enforcement presents unique differences from a plenary action. Thus, they argue that Daimler needs to be tailored to fit such actions. Professors Silberman and Simowitz also examine various alternative bases of jurisdiction — property-based jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and consent — that may be pressed into service if Daimler is extended to recognition and enforcement actions and find both promise as well as limits in those alternatives.
{"title":"Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards: What Hath Daimler Wrought?","authors":"L. Silberman, A. Simowitz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2639820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2639820","url":null,"abstract":"In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court confirmed what it had only hinted at previously — that general jurisdiction over a corporation was limited to a state that could be regarded as its “home.” In doing so, the Court brought the United States closer to the rest of the world in its approach to general jurisdiction. What may have been overlooked, however, is the impact of Daimler on actions brought to recognize and enforce foreign country judgments and foreign arbitral awards if the Daimler standard is applied in that context. Some courts have already done so. Professors Silberman and Simowitz offer an overview of the present jurisdictional regimes for recognition and enforcement actions with respect to both foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Their own analysis concludes that a jurisdictional nexus should be required for recognition and enforcement but that the context of recognition and enforcement presents unique differences from a plenary action. Thus, they argue that Daimler needs to be tailored to fit such actions. Professors Silberman and Simowitz also examine various alternative bases of jurisdiction — property-based jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and consent — that may be pressed into service if Daimler is extended to recognition and enforcement actions and find both promise as well as limits in those alternatives.","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115030117","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 : 2011-03-28DOI: 10.1628/003372511796351340
Johannes Weber
In December 2010, the European Commission published a Proposal for a reform of the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. One of the cornerstones of the Proposal is the operation of the Regulation in the international legal order, a subject which has proven to be one of the most intricate issues in European international civil procedure. The following paper will give a first assessment of the Commission Proposal as regards third State scenarios. After a brief discussion of the Union’s competence and the Union’s interest to legislate in this field, it will turn to the extension of special heads of jurisdiction to third State defendants, the decline of jurisdiction in favour of third States and the proposal for new subsidiary grounds of jurisdiction, before briefly concluding on recognition and enforcement of third State judgments.This article is published in this Research Paper Series with the permission of the rights owner, Mohr Siebeck. Full-text Rabel Journal articles are available via pay-per-view or subscription at IngentaConnect, a provider of digital journals on the Internet.
{"title":"Universal Jurisdiction and Third States in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation","authors":"Johannes Weber","doi":"10.1628/003372511796351340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1628/003372511796351340","url":null,"abstract":"In December 2010, the European Commission published a Proposal for a reform of the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. One of the cornerstones of the Proposal is the operation of the Regulation in the international legal order, a subject which has proven to be one of the most intricate issues in European international civil procedure. The following paper will give a first assessment of the Commission Proposal as regards third State scenarios. After a brief discussion of the Union’s competence and the Union’s interest to legislate in this field, it will turn to the extension of special heads of jurisdiction to third State defendants, the decline of jurisdiction in favour of third States and the proposal for new subsidiary grounds of jurisdiction, before briefly concluding on recognition and enforcement of third State judgments.This article is published in this Research Paper Series with the permission of the rights owner, Mohr Siebeck. Full-text Rabel Journal articles are available via pay-per-view or subscription at IngentaConnect, a provider of digital journals on the Internet.","PeriodicalId":371849,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Jurisdictional Issues (Topic)","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131246250","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：