{"title":"The Last Page","authors":"Taras Shevchenko","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac059","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60700855","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}
{"title":"Roaming Charges: Post-Covid Travel","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac056","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44558709","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}
{"title":"Paolo Palchetti, Review of Hadi Azari, La demande reconventionnelle devant la Cour internationale de Justice","authors":"Paolo Palchetti","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac038","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48028263","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}
There is no doubt, as vividly highlighted in Nico Krisch’s ‘Jurisdiction Unbound: (Extra)territorial Regulation as Global Governance’, that in certain sectors some economically weighty states seek to take advantage of the international law of jurisdiction with a view to determining unilaterally how particular transnational economic activities are conducted. This same law, however, particularly the jurisdictional obligations provided for among states parties by multilateral treaties, is not only capable of serving cooperative national regulation to secure transnational public goods but in respect of a wide range of activities is already doing so. Rather than a fundamental ‘reorientation of jurisdiction towards the solution of common problems and the protection of global interests’, what is needed is political will and diplomatic agreement to use even further the existing law, especially the treaty-based possibilities that it offers, to these ends.
毫无疑问，正如尼科·克里希(Nico Krisch)在《不受约束的管辖权:作为全球治理的(额外)领土监管》(Jurisdiction Unbound: Extra territorial Regulation as Global Governance)一书中生动强调的那样，在某些领域，一些经济大国试图利用国际法的管辖权，以期单方面决定特定的跨国经济活动如何进行。但是，同样的法律，特别是多边条约规定的缔约国之间的管辖权义务，不仅能够为确保跨国公共利益的合作国家管制服务，而且在广泛的活动方面已经这样做了。我们需要的不是根本性的“将管辖权重新定位于解决共同问题和保护全球利益”，而是政治意愿和外交协议，以便进一步利用现有法律，特别是它提供的基于条约的可能性来实现这些目标。
{"title":"Cooperative National Regulation to Secure Transnational Public Goods: A Reply to Nico Krisch","authors":"R. O'keefe","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There is no doubt, as vividly highlighted in Nico Krisch’s ‘Jurisdiction Unbound: (Extra)territorial Regulation as Global Governance’, that in certain sectors some economically weighty states seek to take advantage of the international law of jurisdiction with a view to determining unilaterally how particular transnational economic activities are conducted. This same law, however, particularly the jurisdictional obligations provided for among states parties by multilateral treaties, is not only capable of serving cooperative national regulation to secure transnational public goods but in respect of a wide range of activities is already doing so. Rather than a fundamental ‘reorientation of jurisdiction towards the solution of common problems and the protection of global interests’, what is needed is political will and diplomatic agreement to use even further the existing law, especially the treaty-based possibilities that it offers, to these ends.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48106136","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}
Turkey has always assigned important powers to the legislature, establishing a strong parliamentary tradition. This also applies to the treaty-making process of the state. However, in 2017, the governmental structure was changed from a parliamentary system into a presidential one. This article examines the implications of this transformation on national rules concerning the ratification/termination of treaties, with special emphasis on the withdrawal decision of Turkey from the Istanbul Convention. It is first argued that the new system empowers the president on his/her own to put the Republic under international obligations without assuming political responsibility. It is then argued that the withdrawal decision is unconstitutional, demonstrating that the expansion, without checks and balances, of presidential powers may result in the arbitrary application of the domestic principles of treaty termination. The validity of the decision under the VCLT is also discussed. It is concluded that international law has its limits in intervening in cases of violations of national rules concerning the termination of treaties. It is finally argued that the attribution of all competences concerning the various stages of treaty-making to only one person may have consequences on invalidity claims that Turkey may raise concerning its consent to be bound by treaties.
{"title":"The Legal Effects of the New Presidential System on Turkey’s Treaty-Making Practice","authors":"Ceren Zeynep Pirim","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac032","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Turkey has always assigned important powers to the legislature, establishing a strong parliamentary tradition. This also applies to the treaty-making process of the state. However, in 2017, the governmental structure was changed from a parliamentary system into a presidential one. This article examines the implications of this transformation on national rules concerning the ratification/termination of treaties, with special emphasis on the withdrawal decision of Turkey from the Istanbul Convention. It is first argued that the new system empowers the president on his/her own to put the Republic under international obligations without assuming political responsibility. It is then argued that the withdrawal decision is unconstitutional, demonstrating that the expansion, without checks and balances, of presidential powers may result in the arbitrary application of the domestic principles of treaty termination. The validity of the decision under the VCLT is also discussed. It is concluded that international law has its limits in intervening in cases of violations of national rules concerning the termination of treaties. It is finally argued that the attribution of all competences concerning the various stages of treaty-making to only one person may have consequences on invalidity claims that Turkey may raise concerning its consent to be bound by treaties.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45485303","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}
{"title":"Jan Klabbers, Review of Jens Steffek, International Organization as Technocratic Utopia","authors":"J. Klabbers","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac035","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48024658","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}
{"title":"Jade Roberts, Review of Mira L. Siegelberg, Statelessness: A Modern History","authors":"Jade Roberts","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac033","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43886698","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 international law of jurisdiction is faced with far-reaching changes in the context of a globalizing world, but its general orientation, centred on territoriality as the guiding principle, has remained stable for a long time. This article traces how, in contrast to the prevailing rhetoric of continuity, core categories of jurisdiction have been transformed in recent decades in such a way as to generate an ‘unbound’ jurisdiction, especially when it comes to the regulation of global business activities. The result is a jurisdictional assemblage – an assemblage in which a multiplicity of states have wide and overlapping jurisdictional claims, creating a situation in which, in practice, a few powerful countries wield the capacity to set and implement the rules. Jurisdiction is thus misunderstood if framed as an issue of horizontal relations among sovereign equals but should rather be regarded as a structure of global governance through which (some) states govern transboundary markets. Using a governance prism, this article argues, can help us to gain a clearer view of the normative challenges raised by the exercise of unbound jurisdiction, and it shifts the focus to the accountability mechanisms required to protect public accountability and self-government in weaker states.
{"title":"Jurisdiction Unbound: (Extra)territorial Regulation as Global Governance","authors":"Nico Krisch","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The international law of jurisdiction is faced with far-reaching changes in the context of a globalizing world, but its general orientation, centred on territoriality as the guiding principle, has remained stable for a long time. This article traces how, in contrast to the prevailing rhetoric of continuity, core categories of jurisdiction have been transformed in recent decades in such a way as to generate an ‘unbound’ jurisdiction, especially when it comes to the regulation of global business activities. The result is a jurisdictional assemblage – an assemblage in which a multiplicity of states have wide and overlapping jurisdictional claims, creating a situation in which, in practice, a few powerful countries wield the capacity to set and implement the rules. Jurisdiction is thus misunderstood if framed as an issue of horizontal relations among sovereign equals but should rather be regarded as a structure of global governance through which (some) states govern transboundary markets. Using a governance prism, this article argues, can help us to gain a clearer view of the normative challenges raised by the exercise of unbound jurisdiction, and it shifts the focus to the accountability mechanisms required to protect public accountability and self-government in weaker states.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48254462","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 provides the first in-depth analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ treatment of the jura novit curia principle. It explains how and why it has been used more frequently over the past 10 years, provides a classification of the case law and critically analyses the existing legal issues and debates that have emerged from the jurisprudence and doctrine. In particular, the 2018 Grand Chamber judgment Radomilja v. Croatia has brought jura novit curia and its potentially controversial role in the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights to light. Overall, this article demonstrates that this seemingly anodyne and previously understudied principle reveals conflicting views regarding the functions and purposes of the European Court of Human Rights’ human rights jurisprudence. I argue that the Strasbourg judges should be careful to use the principle consistently and refrain from overusing it, especially in the later stages of proceedings and in order to reduce its case docket.
{"title":"Jura Novit Curia and the European Court of Human Rights","authors":"M. Möschel","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article provides the first in-depth analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ treatment of the jura novit curia principle. It explains how and why it has been used more frequently over the past 10 years, provides a classification of the case law and critically analyses the existing legal issues and debates that have emerged from the jurisprudence and doctrine. In particular, the 2018 Grand Chamber judgment Radomilja v. Croatia has brought jura novit curia and its potentially controversial role in the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights to light. Overall, this article demonstrates that this seemingly anodyne and previously understudied principle reveals conflicting views regarding the functions and purposes of the European Court of Human Rights’ human rights jurisprudence. I argue that the Strasbourg judges should be careful to use the principle consistently and refrain from overusing it, especially in the later stages of proceedings and in order to reduce its case docket.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43811248","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}
In 2011, the European Union (EU) concluded the first of a ‘new generation’ of free trade agreements that contained a separate chapter with obligations relating to ‘trade and sustainable development’ (TSD) issues. This was the Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of Korea. The EU formally initiated its first TSD complaint, under this agreement, in 2018. This labour complaint came after a non-paper of the European Commission promised ‘more assertive’ use of the soft dispute mechanism for TSD obligations, following years of pressure by various stakeholders. This non-paper remained apologetic about hard sanctions but promised a review in 2023. This article aims to study to what extent the EU delivered upon its promise to use the soft dispute mechanism more assertively during its first TSD proceedings. It finds that the EU was not prepared to act assertively in relation to certain issues (collective bargaining and the right to strike) and certain workers (in the public and export sectors) during the proceedings before the ad hoc Panel of Experts, which ended in 2021. It argues, in particular, that the EU missed a major opportunity to use its bargaining leverage vis-à-vis Korean consumer conglomerates.
{"title":"Not That Assertive: The EU’s Take on Enforcement of Labour Obligations in Its Free Trade Agreement with South Korea","authors":"Aleydis Nissen","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chac037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chac037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2011, the European Union (EU) concluded the first of a ‘new generation’ of free trade agreements that contained a separate chapter with obligations relating to ‘trade and sustainable development’ (TSD) issues. This was the Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of Korea. The EU formally initiated its first TSD complaint, under this agreement, in 2018. This labour complaint came after a non-paper of the European Commission promised ‘more assertive’ use of the soft dispute mechanism for TSD obligations, following years of pressure by various stakeholders. This non-paper remained apologetic about hard sanctions but promised a review in 2023. This article aims to study to what extent the EU delivered upon its promise to use the soft dispute mechanism more assertively during its first TSD proceedings. It finds that the EU was not prepared to act assertively in relation to certain issues (collective bargaining and the right to strike) and certain workers (in the public and export sectors) during the proceedings before the ad hoc Panel of Experts, which ended in 2021. It argues, in particular, that the EU missed a major opportunity to use its bargaining leverage vis-à-vis Korean consumer conglomerates.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46558337","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：