The article addresses the Enrica Lexie case as an example of integration between adjudicative and diplomatic means of dispute settlement. It illustrates the case focusing on the Tribunal’s assessment of the scope of its jurisdiction and of the applicable law. The article is organised in four parts, next to the introduction. First, it places the case in the context of the relationship between adjudication and diplomacy in the settlement of international disputes. Second, it illustrates the case as a dispute over the interpretation and application of UNCLOS. Third, it addresses the relevance of the immunity of the marines for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the applicable law. Finally, it concludes with few general policy remarks on the beneficial impact of the Award for the disputing and third Parties, as to the balancing of the interests of flag-States and costal-States in interpreting and applying freedom of navigation.
{"title":"Adjudication at the Service of Diplomacy: The Enrica Lexie Case","authors":"A. Tanzi","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article addresses the Enrica Lexie case as an example of integration between adjudicative and diplomatic means of dispute settlement. It illustrates the case focusing on the Tribunal’s assessment of the scope of its jurisdiction and of the applicable law. The article is organised in four parts, next to the introduction. First, it places the case in the context of the relationship between adjudication and diplomacy in the settlement of international disputes. Second, it illustrates the case as a dispute over the interpretation and application of UNCLOS. Third, it addresses the relevance of the immunity of the marines for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the applicable law. Finally, it concludes with few general policy remarks on the beneficial impact of the Award for the disputing and third Parties, as to the balancing of the interests of flag-States and costal-States in interpreting and applying freedom of navigation. ","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"384 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76225367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The domain of international investment law is evolving. Today, an increasing number of treaty claims filed against states are based on allegations of a breach of contract. Investment treaty tribunals also tend to affirm jurisdiction over such claims, routinely ignoring that the underlying contract may contain an arbitration agreement in favour of commercial arbitration. This tendency creates a potential jurisdictional conflict between a commercial and investment treaty arbitration proceeding; ripe for investors to exploit. In this context, this article explores the different ways in which investment treaty tribunals have created this jurisdictional conflict. On such basis, it assesses the ameliorative potential of the principle of lis pendens in international arbitration, and whether this potential can be realized in a timely manner.
{"title":"Jurisdictional Conflicts between Investment Treaty and Commercial Arbitration—The Role of Lis Pendens","authors":"Harshad Pathak","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The domain of international investment law is evolving. Today, an increasing number of treaty claims filed against states are based on allegations of a breach of contract. Investment treaty tribunals also tend to affirm jurisdiction over such claims, routinely ignoring that the underlying contract may contain an arbitration agreement in favour of commercial arbitration. This tendency creates a potential jurisdictional conflict between a commercial and investment treaty arbitration proceeding; ripe for investors to exploit. In this context, this article explores the different ways in which investment treaty tribunals have created this jurisdictional conflict. On such basis, it assesses the ameliorative potential of the principle of lis pendens in international arbitration, and whether this potential can be realized in a timely manner.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76929424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the utility and advantages of employing side letters in the investment chapter in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs). Even thoughparties to a PTA often use side letters, particularly in relation to the investment chapter, the literature has paid little attention to their utility and advantages. This article develops a typology based on the three functions of the side letter (ie clarification, correction, and consensus on a new term) and explains the detailed letter exchange procedure of the letter exchange. It then discusses the three advantages (ie cost efficiency, flexibility, and transparency) of using side letter.
{"title":"The Uses and Advantages of Side Letters in the Investment Chapters in Preferential Trade Agreements","authors":"Tae-jung Park","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAA024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAA024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyses the utility and advantages of employing side letters in the investment chapter in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs). Even thoughparties to a PTA often use side letters, particularly in relation to the investment chapter, the literature has paid little attention to their utility and advantages. This article develops a typology based on the three functions of the side letter (ie clarification, correction, and consensus on a new term) and explains the detailed letter exchange procedure of the letter exchange. It then discusses the three advantages (ie cost efficiency, flexibility, and transparency) of using side letter.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"10 1","pages":"84-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77264846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After a dispute between India and Pakistan broke out concerning overflight rights, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Secretariat reviewed 204 bilateral aeronautical agreements between 1941 and 1951 and listed them according to the categories of dispute resolution clauses that they contained. Around 68 years have passed and the ICAO Council has exercised its dispute settlement power in multiple occasions. This article builds upon the research carried out by the ICAO Secretariat, which it supplements with up-to-date data of 709 agreements. It then provides a typology, a study of different types, of bilateral air services agreements (ASAs). The article concludes that the use of international arbitration is the primary forum for dispute resolution chosen by drafters of bilateral ASAs. However, a look at the cases brought to ad hoc arbitration reveals deficiencies, which leads us to discuss potential institutionalized reforms.
{"title":"How Are Disputes Resolved under Bilateral Air Services Agreements? A Typology","authors":"Luping Zhang","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 After a dispute between India and Pakistan broke out concerning overflight rights, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Secretariat reviewed 204 bilateral aeronautical agreements between 1941 and 1951 and listed them according to the categories of dispute resolution clauses that they contained. Around 68 years have passed and the ICAO Council has exercised its dispute settlement power in multiple occasions. This article builds upon the research carried out by the ICAO Secretariat, which it supplements with up-to-date data of 709 agreements. It then provides a typology, a study of different types, of bilateral air services agreements (ASAs). The article concludes that the use of international arbitration is the primary forum for dispute resolution chosen by drafters of bilateral ASAs. However, a look at the cases brought to ad hoc arbitration reveals deficiencies, which leads us to discuss potential institutionalized reforms.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84400124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Does international politics influence domestic politics? In the investment treaty regime, there is currently a debate about whether investor-state dispute settlement cases influence respondent state domestic regulation. We present a systematic test of this relationship. Using two unique datasets, we examine whether investor-state cases targeting environmental measures influence respondent states’ environmental regulation. We make two theoretical contributions. First, we present an integrated typology of potential regulatory responses to investor-state dispute settlement cases. Second, we propose a novel, conditional theory of regulatory responses to investor-state cases. We argue that states’ responses should depend on their bureaucratic capacity. In our analysis, we find that respondent state bureaucratic capacity conditions the relationship between investor-state cases and subsequent domestic regulation. There is a more pronounced negative relationship between investor-state cases and regulatory behavior in states with high bureaucratic capacity than in low-capacity states.
{"title":"Do Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases Influence Domestic Environmental Regulation? The Role of Respondent State Bureaucratic Capacity","authors":"Tarald Laudal Berge, Axel Berger","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAA027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAA027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Does international politics influence domestic politics? In the investment treaty regime, there is currently a debate about whether investor-state dispute settlement cases influence respondent state domestic regulation. We present a systematic test of this relationship. Using two unique datasets, we examine whether investor-state cases targeting environmental measures influence respondent states’ environmental regulation. We make two theoretical contributions. First, we present an integrated typology of potential regulatory responses to investor-state dispute settlement cases. Second, we propose a novel, conditional theory of regulatory responses to investor-state cases. We argue that states’ responses should depend on their bureaucratic capacity. In our analysis, we find that respondent state bureaucratic capacity conditions the relationship between investor-state cases and subsequent domestic regulation. There is a more pronounced negative relationship between investor-state cases and regulatory behavior in states with high bureaucratic capacity than in low-capacity states.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"5 1","pages":"1-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82312337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While Islamic finance is premised on wholly antithetical rules and notions as opposed to traditional Western finance, the resolution of pertinent disputes has been structured along the lines of standard commercial arbitration. Islam has always favoured arbitration and mediation and in fact promoted these in very much liberal terms. As a result, there has never been a need to adapt a sui generis Islamic dimension to Islamic finance, because clearly Western and Islamic notions of arbitration largely coincide. In recent years there have been some attempts to limit Islamic finance arbitration within a narrow understanding of Islamic ethics, despite the fact that it has become transnational in character and Islamic ethics are in any event inbuilt in the architecture of Islamic finance instruments, which arbitrators can only avoid at their peril. It is no wonder that Muslim end users generally prefer to resolve disputes arising from Islamic finance transactions in conventional arbitral institutions, while at the same time choosing English law to govern their agreement, typically concurrently with Islamic law or other laws. As a result, Islamic finance has equally attracted non-Muslim end users. The English High Court has not only developed a particular expertise in Islamic finance law but has, in addition, demonstrated how Islamic and secular law are generally compatible and complementary (with some notable exceptions) in construing transnational Islamic finance. At the same time, institutions and rules in the Muslim world that depart from the global arbitration paradigm are fast falling into desuetude. In light of these findings, it is argued that a sui generis Islamic finance arbitration model is not only disfavoured by end users as being out of touch with business reality but is inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of the Islamic law of arbitration.
{"title":"Transnational Islamic Finance Disputes: Towards a Convergence with English Contract Law and International Arbitration","authors":"I. Bantekas","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While Islamic finance is premised on wholly antithetical rules and notions as opposed to traditional Western finance, the resolution of pertinent disputes has been structured along the lines of standard commercial arbitration. Islam has always favoured arbitration and mediation and in fact promoted these in very much liberal terms. As a result, there has never been a need to adapt a sui generis Islamic dimension to Islamic finance, because clearly Western and Islamic notions of arbitration largely coincide. In recent years there have been some attempts to limit Islamic finance arbitration within a narrow understanding of Islamic ethics, despite the fact that it has become transnational in character and Islamic ethics are in any event inbuilt in the architecture of Islamic finance instruments, which arbitrators can only avoid at their peril. It is no wonder that Muslim end users generally prefer to resolve disputes arising from Islamic finance transactions in conventional arbitral institutions, while at the same time choosing English law to govern their agreement, typically concurrently with Islamic law or other laws. As a result, Islamic finance has equally attracted non-Muslim end users. The English High Court has not only developed a particular expertise in Islamic finance law but has, in addition, demonstrated how Islamic and secular law are generally compatible and complementary (with some notable exceptions) in construing transnational Islamic finance. At the same time, institutions and rules in the Muslim world that depart from the global arbitration paradigm are fast falling into desuetude. In light of these findings, it is argued that a sui generis Islamic finance arbitration model is not only disfavoured by end users as being out of touch with business reality but is inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of the Islamic law of arbitration.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":" 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72382350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is one of the world's most active human rights tribunals. Through an impressive history of case law, the Court has exerted significant influence upon Latin American states. In recent years, however, states and domestic national courts have challenged the Inter-American Court's authority in more complex and potentially more damaging ways than in the past. By exploring how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has expanded its reach upon states, and how states engage in turn, the Article examines ways of interaction that can enhance or debilitate the Court's authority and influence on states. The Article explores recent dissents as a potential mode of resistance, especially when coupled with states' unease towards international adjudication and suggests ways in which the Court may respond to such challenges in order to protect and enhance its authority.
{"title":"Judicial Interactions and Human Rights Contestations in Latin America","authors":"J. Contesse","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is one of the world's most active human rights tribunals. Through an impressive history of case law, the Court has exerted significant influence upon Latin American states. In recent years, however, states and domestic national courts have challenged the Inter-American Court's authority in more complex and potentially more damaging ways than in the past. By exploring how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has expanded its reach upon states, and how states engage in turn, the Article examines ways of interaction that can enhance or debilitate the Court's authority and influence on states. The Article explores recent dissents as a potential mode of resistance, especially when coupled with states' unease towards international adjudication and suggests ways in which the Court may respond to such challenges in order to protect and enhance its authority.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88403728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) is undergoing a seismic shift, not least regarding its relationship with human rights. We apply the three ‘generations’ of human rights framework to ISDS reform, underscoring fundamental tensions between ISDS and human rights considerations. The resultant tensions are as varied as calls for reform spanning, inter alia, permissive human rights provisions in international investment agreements, inconsistent State practices regarding human rights in model agreements, and case law that largely ignores human rights considerations. We acknowledge these tensions, noting where they persist, as well as where the seeds of reform have already been sewn. We contend that ongoing ISDS reform efforts provide opportunities to infuse the ISDS architecture with a newfound emphasis on all generations of human rights, thereby overcoming many of the persistent tensions that have previously encumbered efforts to develop synergies between ISDS and international human rights law.
{"title":"Human Rights and Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole?","authors":"K. Duggal, Nicholas J. Diamond","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) is undergoing a seismic shift, not least regarding its relationship with human rights. We apply the three ‘generations’ of human rights framework to ISDS reform, underscoring fundamental tensions between ISDS and human rights considerations. The resultant tensions are as varied as calls for reform spanning, inter alia, permissive human rights provisions in international investment agreements, inconsistent State practices regarding human rights in model agreements, and case law that largely ignores human rights considerations. We acknowledge these tensions, noting where they persist, as well as where the seeds of reform have already been sewn. We contend that ongoing ISDS reform efforts provide opportunities to infuse the ISDS architecture with a newfound emphasis on all generations of human rights, thereby overcoming many of the persistent tensions that have previously encumbered efforts to develop synergies between ISDS and international human rights law.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88673476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The COVID-19 outbreak has severely impacted global business communities. Experts predict a tsunami of disputes. In this unprecedented situation, rational, cost-effective and quick dispute resolution is no more an option but a need. This need may be met by Planned Early Dispute Resolution (PEDR) and technological tools. Although the uptake of both has been slow so far, the current crisis may act as a catalyst for their more extensive use. This article starts with an overview of PEDR by addressing its definition, models, elements and use, among other aspects. It then investigates actual experiences of companies with PEDR systems and elements and discusses the effect that the companies’ shift to PEDR has on law firms. The article concludes by exploring how PEDR systems can benefit from the use of technological tools and how the interaction between technology and dispute resolution can contribute to shaping the future of the legal profession.
{"title":"Planned Early Dispute Resolution Systems and Elements: Experiences and the Promise of Technology","authors":"Dilyara Nigmatullina","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 outbreak has severely impacted global business communities. Experts predict a tsunami of disputes. In this unprecedented situation, rational, cost-effective and quick dispute resolution is no more an option but a need. This need may be met by Planned Early Dispute Resolution (PEDR) and technological tools. Although the uptake of both has been slow so far, the current crisis may act as a catalyst for their more extensive use. This article starts with an overview of PEDR by addressing its definition, models, elements and use, among other aspects. It then investigates actual experiences of companies with PEDR systems and elements and discusses the effect that the companies’ shift to PEDR has on law firms. The article concludes by exploring how PEDR systems can benefit from the use of technological tools and how the interaction between technology and dispute resolution can contribute to shaping the future of the legal profession.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90495721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent years have seen a marked increase in ‘clashes’ between national courts on the one hand and international courts and tribunals on the other hand. This article introduces a new analytical pattern, called ‘principled resistance’, in order to analyse deficits occurring during the implementation phase of a Strasbourg judgment. This analytical concept is contrasted with other most recently developed scholarly concepts (‘reasonable resistance’: Palombino; ‘pushback’ and ‘backlash’: Madsen; ‘principled’ and ‘dilatory non-execution’: de Londras and Dzehtsiarou) in order to show differences and commonalities. Furthermore, the limits of (permissible) ‘disagreement’, as opposed to (impermissible) ‘principled resistance’, are explored from an international law point of view. It will be argued that although cases of principled resistance are extremely rare, the concept has an analytical value in that it prevents us from overestimating divergences between national and international courts and tribunals. At the same time, it will be shown that even where courts and other national actors employ legal arguments for their resistance to the ECtHR, those conflicts should be conceptualized as struggles over the proper allocation of powers between the national level and Strasbourg.
{"title":"The Concept of ‘Principled Resistance’ to ECtHR Judgments: A Useful Tool to Analyse Implementation Deficits?","authors":"M. Breuer","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAA028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAA028","url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen a marked increase in ‘clashes’ between national courts on the one hand and international courts and tribunals on the other hand. This article introduces a new analytical pattern, called ‘principled resistance’, in order to analyse deficits occurring during the implementation phase of a Strasbourg judgment. This analytical concept is contrasted with other most recently developed scholarly concepts (‘reasonable resistance’: Palombino; ‘pushback’ and ‘backlash’: Madsen; ‘principled’ and ‘dilatory non-execution’: de Londras and Dzehtsiarou) in order to show differences and commonalities. Furthermore, the limits of (permissible) ‘disagreement’, as opposed to (impermissible) ‘principled resistance’, are explored from an international law point of view. It will be argued that although cases of principled resistance are extremely rare, the concept has an analytical value in that it prevents us from overestimating divergences between national and international courts and tribunals. At the same time, it will be shown that even where courts and other national actors employ legal arguments for their resistance to the ECtHR, those conflicts should be conceptualized as struggles over the proper allocation of powers between the national level and Strasbourg.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82979310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：